Lucky...

Cmon, should I write a thesis paper to prove to you that I have gray carpet in my living room, or is it sufficient to tell you that I have gray carpet in my living room. Or you could take the burden of proof upon yourself and show me all this scientifically tested empirical evidence that welfare isn't abused. Ever wonder why conservatives don't post empirical data? You seem like a smart, level-headed guy who would post data if you could find some that supported your position. The problem is that all of the major, objective data out there that I've seen doesn't reflect well upon your position and so you're unfortunately relegated to just personal opinion. Please, I learn when I get beat in debate, post data to support your position and don't be abstract.

Then you can't be too sore if I dismiss your opinion as factually irrelevant. No problem - that's why it's CALLED 'opinion' and not 'fact'. *looks around for the clue-by-four...* Right, and a factually supported opinion carries a WHOLE LOT MORE weight than does a casual opinion; I do what I can to make my opinions stronger, whereas you ask us to just believe you.

Thx for your insightful response to: maybe a massive hospital project so we could both create jobs and and tend to our sick w/o helathcare ins.... I must say that I agree with you, sick people and laid off angry peole kiling families is peaceful captalism, building hospitals is ugly socialism. Please post that Newsmax site. From a guy who demands others do massive research for him, that's typical irony (oxymoron) for you to fail to cite. So it's greedy capitalist America or horribly Communist China; there are no grey areas in conservatism.

Hmmm, maybe the gubbement should start factories or maybe a massive hospital project so we could both create jobs and and tend to our sick w/o helathcare ins.... but that would be the evil socialism, whereas we see how humane capitalism is; do or die. How many of these people in distress kill their families too? Whne the brilliant resistance to socialism falls, we will then have a descent society - wish I was born 40 years later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQzh7A5Gam8 I have #2 in a 7.62x39, #1, so I have the best of both worlds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2F_wpFT-oA&NR=1&feature=fvwp Here they say AK also as #1 Of course these aren't bad either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Munit01.jpg But they're not dangerous as they are hunting rounds The most radical,lethal rounds are delivered from a nerdy looking gun; go figure.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.html If you have anything to say, I would love to respond. Oh I thought the link said it all. my bad. OK here goes.... You think the Republicans are horrific with money yet you see no problem with Obama's budget...is this correct? Yes, but let's be real, we can't tally things up until after time has elapsed and we see the outcome. For instance, you hate his budgte and all of his stimulus, but do you realize the GDP turnaround? http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm So after that, from -6.4 to -1.0 in one quarter, is his budget excessive? Are you going to pretend that Obama inherited a sorta stumbling economy or THE WORST ECONOMY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION? I think your side underestimates the severity of the mess that Obama inherited. That turnaround is insanely awesome and next quarter serves to be well into the black, probably +2 or +3. So when you ask me abiut Obama's budget I am pleased, first he's going to fix the mess he inherited, then as he does that he's going to make America more humanistic and ensure we all have medical coverage while he gets us back to work, then he'll focus on debt / deficit issues. He's doing what Clinton did but in a much more efficient and proactive process after iheriting a REAL MESS.

That's why you bring a chick with you who has a really big purse. Then you might score after the movie too, for being such a nice guy and buying her a movie.

20%? Better check your figures on that one. Too low? probably... I've recently heard a figure via television media that claimed 60% believe in procreation, but virtually all of those want it removed from politics. I think a lot of these 60% are people who just say they are Christian because their parents were and they have not been to church in decades. My sister is one of those, our family has never been church-bound, but since she's a follower and a suck-up she goes along with everything. So the data is harshly skewed. I call these people, "just-in-casers." What if Jebus is listening and there is a heaven.... As an aside, the logistics of Christianity make it virtually impossible. There are 150,000 people dying on earth every day, there are 86,400 seconds in a day, so if my math is right, that leaves .576 seconds consideration of entry for every person. Is this realistic, even with all the other ridiculous elements of Christianity? Triage would be centuries away; this concept of meeting the maker is ridiculous, not to mention all of the other miracles"he" has to make time for. But you have to leave the door open to remain objective, but it seems to be a futile belief. Say it isn't true.

http://instantrimshot.com/

All this empirical evidence, I'm going to burn my science books HEy Lucky. I'm very poor. Seriously. No lie. If I pm'd you my address would you send me a donation? Yea, but it won't be money and you won't like it. I have an idea, why don't we set up a safety net system thru the gov to establish who's in need and disperse it that way.....oh wait, Republicans hate the idea of the needy getting help, or for that matter anyone in a class lower than they are.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.html If you have anything to say, I would love to respond.

Uh, fiscally for sure, do you want to argue who jacks up the debt and offloads money to the rich via tax cuts? Fiscally, make no bones about it, the right has been the villian for 30 years with the exception of GHWB. I love absolutists. So what if I didn't, when are we going from your feelings being hurt over me finding an old post of yours insulting people, to me being the devil for allegedly being partisan? Put them in context. Furthermore, they aren't aimed at 1 person here. Making fun of a political party is not the same as directing it at a person. Not to mention if I didn't have a life I could go the thread you closed down and draw more instances of you saying similar things to forum members. I'm generally partisan, as are you, but I'm not absolutely partisan. I voted for Dole, I'm still registered Republican, and I might votethat way again if they find their way back. I think Eisenhower and GHWB were 2 of the greatest presidents we've had in the last 50 years. Explain why it's best.

Just that one side is hoarding....BIG TIME. ...I never said "all." You made a snide comment, effectively stabbing him in the eye with the olive branch he was extending. How the hell did you expect the conversation to pan out after that? By this point, this non-issue is so far dilluted that it doesn't matter. I just said that the idiots seem to be hoarded on the right side of the isle in congress, if that's a snyde comment to him then both you and he must break down and cry during the day whenever something happens like you spilling a drop of milk or something so horrible. What pissed him off was that he said he hated it when people used indults to make arguments, or something to that effect, I found an old thread where he did that and I posted it. Geez, find and issue to talk about, but either way, quit following each other around slapping each other's backs.

I'm sorry, do you have a post somewhere on here that's critical of Dems? It must have gotten lost in the midst of all the 'evil Republican' posts. I'm sure I do, but if not let me start here: 1) Clinton signed NAFTA after GHWB initiated it and congress passed it. 2) Clinton pardoned Symington 3) Clinton signed the Republican homophobic MArriage Defense Act 4) Clinton got a blow job and lied about it....wait, scratch that, I have a clue and I'm not that desperate to find things to whine about. That's off the top of my head, I'm sure I could find more or perhaps you run some by me. The Dems aren't always right, but they are fiscally right for the country and after everyone's moral stands that's what really matters. I can't really find a major fiscal issue that Dems have fucked up over the last 30 years, can you? The Republicans are horrific with money.

All this empirical evidence, I'm going to burn my science books

That's because he didn't understand it. That's because he thought the movie was non-fiction and didn't want to offend the inhabitants of Coruscant.

Many of the people against SS, MEdicare, Medicaid or anything socialist and the biggest socialists of them all; seniors. My boss is one, I called him on it, he didn't like it

Star wars - yea I know it was a nickname for fun. As for feasability, they send a missle from Vandenburg to Kwajalein every now and then and I think they miss most of the time with the intercept missle, don't they? Putin - I don't know volumes about that relationship, but any time we can try to mend our relationships it's a good thing.

You seem to think that if you can cite someone that agrees with your opinion that it makes it fact - not so. I cite governemnt agencies when I can. Please, oh please Mikey, show me a Moveon, a DNC, ACLU or any lefty ref I've posted. In fact I found a few of those in the process of research and I rejected them. You're outta gas bro. I'd criticize citations of yours, but I can't find any That's because I don't offer my OPINION as fact. Keep waiting. Then you can't be too sore if I dismiss your opinion as factually irrelevant.

You could have researched that, but you have me for that. http://boards.hbo.com/topic/Maher-Member-Created/Heathcare-Rankings-37th/1900013663 The weights on variables are 25% level of health, 25% distribution of health, 25% level and distribution of responsiveness, and 25% fairness of financial contribution. Here's a breakdown of rankings for Canada, the UK, France and the US... Health Level - (France - 3), (US - 24), (UK - 14), (Canada - 12) Health Distribution - (France - 12), (US - 32), (UK - 2), (Canada - 18) Responsiveness Level - (France - 16-17), (US - 1), (UK - 26?27), (Canada - 7?8) Responsiveness Distribution - (France - 3?38), (US - 3?38), (UK - 3?38), (Canada - 3?38) Fairness in financial contribution - (France - 26?29), (US - 54?55), (UK - 8?11), (Canada - 17?19) Overall goal attainment - (France - 6), (US - 15), (UK - 9), (Canada - 7) Health expenditure per capita in $ - (France - 4), (US - 1 - most expensive), (UK - 26), (Canada - 10) On level of Health - (France - 4), (US - 72), (UK - 24), (Canada - 35) Overall health system performance - (France - 1), (US - 37), (UK - 18), (Canada - 30) It's a ratio, here's an explanation of it: http://www.who.int/health-systems-performance/current_work/cw_fairfin.htm The US sucks in healthcare, real hard to argue that. Yes, the truth; what a set of criteria to base a study upon. Are you now saying the Global Peace Index is wrong? http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009 Is it unbelievable that a country of 4% of the world population virtually matching the other 96% in military spedning (more with Iraq War) is not a peaceful nation? Under Bush the US has ignored the UN over Iraq, engaged in a fruitless war, as well as amyriad of other things, so were were 96 om 2007, 97 in 2008 and after Obama takes office now we're 83. We're a militant country and then data and ranking supports that. I don't see how this is difficult to fathom. Here's this: http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm - Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world.[1] The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers - U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in unstable regions on the verge of, in the middle of, or recovering from conflict. - U.S.-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world over. The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999 - 1998-2001, over 68% of world arms deliveries were sold or given to developing nations, where lingering conflicts or societal violence can scare away potential investors.[4] Those liberals calling us unpeaceful....all I can't figure out is how they put Iraq below us.

Yea, then we'll get Starwars up and running BTW, yes, right thing to do

Why? Personally, I kind of like people who have ideals and stick to them. It makes it easier to predict how they're going to behave once they're in office. People who just change to suit the political winds are likely to continue doing so once in office. Gotta love the irony! I hear ya bro: RON PAUL FLIP-FLOP: Reagan's aide in 8o, then departs in 88, back in 2008 editorials attached: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071218002822AASHMx3 BUSH'S FLIP=FLOPS: http://www.50bushflipflops.com/Introduction/home.html I'll just let you read the list pf 50 for fun

You seem to think that if you can cite someone that agrees with your opinion that it makes it fact - not so. I cite governemnt agencies when I can. Please, oh please Mikey, show me a Moveon, a DNC, ACLU or any lefty ref I've posted. In fact I found a few of those in the process of research and I rejected them. You're outta gas bro. I'd criticize citations of yours, but I can't find any

The typical liberal methodology for discussing issues is to include both consistent and opposing conversation. Wanna see examples of that? Look at Bill Mahr's politically incorrect, look at Limbaugh's radio show, even look at the View. Conservatives don't want adverse views in their presence. Libs will talk your ear off, conservatives will just shut you out. And Paul has defected and spoke out against Reagan, so he's out. Explain to me, please, Paul's agenda for the poor. Please, no one has done that yet. This, "competition will make the market more available for everyone" is BS and we all know it. When you see people walking around with ailments, mental health issues, etc it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. And you can tell people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps for so long until you notice they aren't; now what's your reaction? Here we go, if you give people welfare they'll grow addicted to it, bla, bla. AND THIS IS THE RIGHT WING SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I say right wing because Ron Paul is RW, call it the conservative method or whatever is pallatable for you. When you drive by a parking lot, assume all the people there are welfare recipients and assess their vehicles and call that science, you have just refused to be scientific and the banjos play. What if the cars are owned by the employees? What if the cars are borrowed or a friend drove them? You have nothing to offer scientifically, even wonder why Paul gets 3% popular vote? Yea, lazy piece of shit, get out of that wheelchair, faker. No, not greed, but kind compassion, as when a father beats his kid for the good of the kid. Yea, just deny them and if they are tough they will surface, if not they will die off. Sound slike Salem revisted. Again, wonder why Paul gets 3%? It HAS BEEN the Republicans doing the spending, just that they feel no sympathy for poor peopel, they feel sympathy for rich people and give them corporate welfare. Now you're getting into that concept of acting like welfare is going to lead to a tax increase. Listen well: OBAMA IS GOING TO INCREASE TAXES WITH OR WITHOUT HEALTHCARE REFORM. AKA: avoidance. As I wrote, you can volunteer at the shelter and that's admirable, but you can't volunteer to perform a medical operation, so we need to collect taxes or do as Paul would do and refuse to acknowledge poor people. Not at all, I'm just talking the protocol of conservative talkers. Look at Limbaugh, he jumps around in his chair, makes of Michael Fox and makes racist remarks about McNabb. I don't think he's exemplary of all conservatives, I think most conservatives have a degree of that in them. SO they've been a failure and the fix is to oust them all? And the, 'freedom to manage our own resources ' means to ignore poor people or MC peopel that cannot afford healthcare; I get it. You keep infering Paul's/Libertarians concern yet everytime you have a chance to illustrate it you just give me this, 'take care of yourself or die' rhetotic. Showme Paul's platform on social svs. We have the least dependent nation in the free world and you want to make svs less available under this fairytale of evryone taking care of themselves, even the elderly and disabled. Even for solvent people, we're still 37th in the world in overall healthcare. Yes it's fair, you might become disabled and draw 1000 time more from it than you put into it, or you might never draw a dime from it. See, we have to have it or you could be out in the streets like 1000's of peopel in Tijuana; ever been there? Altho I don't mean to infer Republicans/Libertarians have compassion, but it might make ya feel good to know your nation talkes care of its weak. There will always be some form of SS, esp for the elderly. I recall you saying you were 5 when Perot ran, is that right? If so, that makes you 22ish. Trust me kid, and I say that with all endearment, life gets waaaaay tougher. Ever wonder why the rules have been established so that you have age requirements to run for congress or teh presidency? And 25/35 in those days is like 50 or 60 today, so that should be revised. You have high schoo and your dad's opinions from which to draw, you are probably in perfect heath and cannot understand people who aren't. But to sit there and nitpick who gets it because they're 20 lbs overweight and declare them ineligible is what the conservatives call compassion and why they're out and falling. Instead of looking for ways to help people they look for ways to disqualify people from help; get the recurring theme? Notice I bolded part of that definition. Just because you need something doesn't mean you deserve it. Remember, the definition for greed was to need or deserve, not want and deserve, so your point is void in that either element satisfies the requirement. As well, HC is not material wealth, so trying to bastardize the definition of GREED and apply it to people w/o HC is so American of you. Look at all those greedy people down on their luck, they have abcessed teeth and they actually want medical care, greedy bastards, WWPD: that's an acronym ofr: What Would PAul Do? He would call em greedy and kick em to the curb and feel compassionate for it - enjoy your 3%. Ok, but your scenario assumes everyone is able, what I would expect from a 22 YO. Now we learn the guy staying back has only 1 leg, now how do you feel? And the people who have families early in life and never establish work skills, education, etc. People who are unemployed due to a healthy Republican economy. On and on and on. People with preexisting conditions. This isn't about working for it, this is about putting greed, material greed not the 'I just want basic helthcare' greed to which you refer, but putting greed over people. America has always been good at that, we just need to unlearn it. OH REALLY? You're calling for a slashing of all svs, quit changing up now.

I initially wrote: Just that one side is hoarding....BIG TIME. Then in resonse to you I wrote something about the idiots sitting on the right side, nothing about, "...they are only on ONE side of the isle..." Those are your words. Because you wrote words that I did not write. I never said "all." Because I call congressmen idiots? OK, I guess that makes me a bad guy incapable of argument because I call conhressmen a bunch of idiots. Now, onto your calling other forum members names as I posted above.... I won't, just quit misquoting me. I didn't write: "they are only on ONE side of the isle."