Lucky...

I'm glad you speak for everyone. Also, it's fun to read you and Belgian pretend not to be Repiblicans; I really can't blame you, if the Dems stunk that bad but I was compelled to still be Dem, I would call myself independent too. Really? I didn't vote for Clinton either time, hope that doesn't fuck up your ad hominem too much. Really? Voter turnout in the 2004 general was 123.5M http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2004G.html, turnout in 2008 was 132.6M http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html Obama won by 10M votes, there were 9.1M more voters who turned out from 2004 to 2008, mostly young but about 2M were new blacks. Next time I need to prove you wrong, at least make it a challenge please. Point is, very few switched over, mostly new young voters and a small % of new balck voters made the diff, altho even w/o the new black voters the new young vote was the deal-maker. Me thinks it's your opinion not given a lot of credence. The Jewish vote is nominal as well that vote goes both drections, there are plenty of Lieberman's out there who vote R. I think the wildcard that Obama stiched up with the Sotomayer nomination/appointment will be the Hispanic vote, the 2nd largest demographic other than whites. It's hard to believe you couldn't see that and thought the Jewish community was that impressive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States 2.7M Jewish by religion, and shrinking. Hell, Muslims are on the upswing as compared to Jewish folks. I'm guessing you did a lot of guessing in this post. I do research.

Not a joke, but not as severe as Iran/Contra. You wanna make us believe that none of the arms were used for murder? Back to the drawing board; go design me a trailer. Staw man extreme. You keep asking me to design you a trailer, but you never give me details so I can come up with a quote. Wassa matta...can't figure it out by yourself? Naw, I live in a house, hope you have a double-wide. Yea, Iran-Contra = BJ gate..... maybe that explains why your party is on the outs, that and the 12.6T debt they are basically responsible for. Oh wait, that's right, you are an independant that agrees with 90% of what Republicans do, that's right - my bad. Isn't it fun to hang back and pretend not to be a Republican? I really can't blame ya.

Where'd ya go, newguy? Just wondering if you could connect fascist ronnie and Obama? I don't see any parallels.

Like I said, we discussed this once before. You got shut down, refused to acknowledge facts, and I don't expect you to act any differently this time. Thus far I am right on target. You are so easy to predict it's almost funny! I post this: Ah, one other person. Showed me the way..... I see. As I recall, my research indicated they didn't have 1 acft carrier in 1980. As I said, they were never a deployment threat. Oh, shall we talk WWII? The Lend-Lease Act provided some military tools from us to them, not mention the 200k US troops that died over there. Hell, Germany would have beat the USSR had they not tried to take them in teh Fall of 44. The USSR lost 12M troops, we lost 200K, the allieds lost 10's of thousands and Germany lost 3M or so. SO the USSR lost 4 times the troops Germany did and they had the help from 80% of teh rest of the world and you still think they ever did anything notable? They were somehow a deployment threat? I see . You better run back to the middle, you're showing your RW support, as usual, then declare you're moderate You post nothing and claim victory. If you want to believe that 1980 USSR was a threat w/o any real ability to reach out and touch, I'm good with that. You or anyone has yet to provide any evidence that the USSR has EVER been a force with which to be dealt. That's ok, you back tax cuts and are unable to show me 1 major tax cut that has led to anything but disaster. Yet you back fascist pig Ronnie for throwing the country down the shitter on his delluded fantasy that the commies were coming. So at this point, don't dissapoint and keep making it about me, don't post any data where teh USSR was a threat or post a tax cut that actually helped; then create a pattern where several tax cuts helped. Non, no, don't do that, just keep trying to convince yourself you're right just 'cause.

TRANSLATION: You have no reply. I can get rid of you easily by just posting fact. Here's the info again if you care to address it: Ah, one other person. Showed me the way..... I see. As I recall, my research indicated they didn't have 1 acft carrier in 1980. As I said, they were never a deployment threat. Oh, shall we talk WWII? The Lend-Lease Act provided some military tools from us to them, not mention the 200k US troops that died over there. Hell, Germany would have beat the USSR had they not tried to take them in teh Fall of 44. The USSR lost 12M troops, we lost 200K, the allieds lost 10's of thousands and Germany lost 3M or so. SO the USSR lost 4 times the troops Germany did and they had the help from 80% of teh rest of the world and you still think they ever did anything notable? They were somehow a deployment threat? I see . You better run back to the middle, you're showing your RW support, as usual, then declare you're moderate

Tell me a time when they were militarily tough? When did they ever kick anyone's ass? As for nuclear, many, mnay nations have them and can push the button, so far only the US has been so depraved. We discussed all that in another thread some time ago. More than one person in that thread showed you the numbers that proved you wrong, you chose to ignore them. Why should I think you would act any differently now? Ah, one other person. Showed me the way..... I see. As I recall, my research indicated they didn't have 1 acft carrier in 1980. As I said, they were never a deployment threat. Oh, shall we talk WWII? The Lend-Lease Act provided some military tools from us to them, not mention the 200k US troops that died over there. Hell, Germany would have beat the USSR had they not tried to take them in teh Fall of 44. The USSR lost 12M troops, we lost 200K, the allieds lost 10's of thousands and Germany lost 3M or so. SO the USSR lost 4 times the troops Germany did and they had the help from 80% of teh rest of the world and you still think they ever did anything notable? They were somehow a deployment threat? I see . You better run back to the middle, you're showing your RW support, as usual, then declare you're moderate . Hillarious

Right, my point. Who were they? Right, which accents my point, the USSR didn't have a reach out and touch military, more of a homeland military and they were strewn over AFG from 79 to 88, so even tho they had an emminsely inferior military to the US, one that wasn't designed to travel, on top of that they were engaged in a mess in AFG. And then they couldn't even control that mess and pulled out after losing what, 20k? Our population was bigger, I don't know the troop numbers in the 80's. I will say this, I wouldn't want to fight them over there, esp in the winter, but conventionally they were crap, esp considering they didn't have a real ability to deploy. They were never a conventional military threat and we can see after the bay of pigs that they weren't really hip to ending the world as we know it, as we weren't either. CONCLUSION: they were never a threat other than with a proxy war. W/o being an expert; agreed. Look at thier nuclear power capabilities with Chernobyl. Check out utube for a city called Pripyat, that was 3KM from Chernobyl powerplant, a population of 50K before the mess. Just look at their architecture and the amusement park in 1986 and compare it to our stuff. Nothing they had was worth a fuck, hence they weren't a conventional military threat and probably not a nuclear one either. Reagan was just so ghey in love with the notion that Communism was out to get us and he blew the load on that errant notion. I bet the USSR just wanted to make it thru and had to put up a tough front to keep the US at arm's reach. Hell, we provided a lot of their grain, why would they want to kill us? The ME is and has always been the mess and it is in part our fault. I wish they would just run out of oil so we could ignore them other than to ensure they don't get nukes.

Tell me a time when they were militarily tough? When did they ever kick anyone's ass? As for nuclear, many, mnay nations have them and can push the button, so far only the US has been so depraved.

I don't think anyone bought the notion Reagan wanted to rid the world of weapons, nuclear or otherwise. He was a huge proliferator of conventional weapons regardless of SALT, which we all knew was just a ploy to get them to drop arms while we kept ours. FR was senile and delluded thinking the USSR was a threat anyway.

Not a joke, but not as severe as Iran/Contra. You wanna make us believe that none of the arms were used for murder? Back to the drawing board; go design me a trailer.

Right, the winners get to write the history books. G Bay had admitted war crimes known, yet you consider us the winner? You can't even write a sentence w/o contradiction, can you? How about the troops that raped the 14 YO girl and kiled the family? No war crimes there, altho that is isolated, it is a war crime. Shall we talk the American Indian? Yea, I would just let that little dream of yours go, WE HAVE AND DO COMMIT NUMEROUS WAR CRIMES. The best way to avoid war crimes: don't enter war unless it is absolutley necc. Bush directed G Bay and Abu Graib (sp). There were numerous war crimes commited; let it go, you just keep stepping all over yourself. And to compare GWB to Saddam is very keenl I agree.

I dislike ‘anyone’ that harms someone unnecessarily. You are defending the practice of incarcerating innocent people in order to wage a war that is built on false pretences, the murder of innocent people. That is immoral. You could say nothing or agree that innocent people should not be kept, but instead you either want to disagree with me, or you want to defend these actions. Once again you spout dribble in response to a post without reading it first. Nowhere did I defend Cheney, Bush, and/or Rumsfeld. Right, you do so indirectly, then sit in the middle and say, "what, me?" Go build a trailer you pseudo acft engineer. At least I'm working. Shit, that place I go everyday I thought was my workplace. Hmm, they give me a check every week and I kick ass for them, oh well, guess I'm not working.

I know, I miss Bush too . She's GWB's little sister, it will be fun to watch teh primaries. My prediction is that she won't run, she's just cashing in and a loss in the primaries could be expenseive to her and she is all about the money, manipulating RW extremists for that cash.

So basically you're predicting an Obama victory? Regardless of who wins the GOP nod, 4 years won't be enough time to forget the horrid GOP. It's really OBama's to fuck up, all he's done so far is to better things, so the real question is: who in 2016? Hillary? If jobs are good enough, could be her, of course teh morons elected GWB via EV's after Clinton did a great job, Gire should have been a lock. As an aside, just think what 911 would have been like in teh aftermath with Gore. It would have changed everything, 911 would have happened either way, just the way it was dealt with would have been different.

Probably Romney, if not Huckfinabee. I don't see the ghey for Gingrich crowd, he has bagage.

The issue is not the resistance, it's the forcible part. And the stories I get from coworkers indicate that there is no resistance given, the cops do this as preemptive protocol. You should not resist the cops, but the cops/courts should not be so Nazi as to search your body for evidence in DUI cases where no bodily or property damage is present. This is teh issue ypou want to avoid. I see, breaching your body's membranes is ok so long as a judge OPK's it? Now I see . I find it unconscionable to poke a needle into someone w/o consent for a simple DUI suspect case. Now if there are injuries, esp fatalities, do it now. Ity's where we want to place teh bar, the true Americans, the ones who claim to represent freedom, support these practices. The silly liberal side who apparently don't want freedoms reject the idea that the gov can forcibly hold a person down while blood is drawn. I get your side's interpretation of freedom and it stinks as much as it did before. Like I said, redneck states are more likely to do it than those horrible liberal states. Nazizona does it, obviously NaziTexas does it. I don't have a list of the states that do that, but I bet they're grouped in the south. And I don't drink, haven't for years, never really did drink much. So I'm not defending drunks everywhere, I'm against extreme actions in the pursuit of evidence for cases where there was no ultimatee harm done. That said, I deplore drunk drivers, I'm just not willing to have any suspect probed for evidence.

wow... I really struck a nerve with that didn't I. In any case, I swapped the terms while typing them. Will edit to fix. Thanks for pointing it out, even in such an asinine manner. wow... I really struck a nerve with that didn't I. anf then... Thanks for pointing it out, even in such an asinine manner. Who struck a nerve??? All I'm saying is that I'm not being particular, unless we are into a deep issue where specifics are important, I get the sum of what you're saying, you trying to demand it's "income" and not "money" is that kind of semantics that I won't bow to. Geez, I misspelled, "could" and no one has corrected it, great. You shoudl have dealt withthe issue of MONEY IS TAXED, NOT PEOPLE rather than try to divert the argument to that of, "do you mean money or do you mean income?" SAME THING. No need to edit, we are not grammar Nazis here, other than Ron.

Implied consent is old hat. Now, in Nazimerica, they get a telephonic warrant and slam your ass to the ground by the local finest and forcibly draw blood. The Nazi red(neck) states just punk your ass and draw blood, that admin stuff is for pussies, so they say. I couild be semantic and say protection, as you did with money vs income, but yes, you have a priv/protection against self-incrim in any CRIMINAL matter.

Indeed. Which is why we have laws requiring driving tests before a driver's license is issued, rules of the road, restrictions on alcohol sales, alcohol prohibited rules in many public areas, registration of cars and trucks, mandatory insurance, vehicle inspections, vehicle-free zones etc. Nice of you to point out that there's NO DIFFERENCE between the two activities, one of which is heavily regulated for the public good, and one of which is not but obviously should be. Thanks

It would be interesting to see how many of the "rich elite" in the USA would have become rich had they been born in, say, Sudan or Botswana or Eritrea where there is no supporting infrastructure. The reason it is fairly easy (everything being relative) to become affluent in the USA is that we do have an infrastructure, primarily supported by TAXES, that is enabling. If you want to start a small business you have access to a literate and numerate workforce thanks primarily to public schools; you operate in a stable and lawful society thanks to taxpayer supported law enforcement, courts, etc., you have access to effective transportation and communication systems (FedEx doesn't work so well with 3rd world services); you have easy access to clean water and sewer services, and countless other systems working in the background, mostly provided by taxpayer support. I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure. So you're not happy that 50% of the people don't pay into that system and help support what they use? That 50% are the backs under which the top 20% possess 93% of all cash and 85% of all cash and asset. Actually the lower 50% pay 3% of the total tax bill, basically nothing, but still a little. Are you hoping the wealth disparity spreads even more? Absolutley....I'm for getting all I can and the rest of you can get fucked (but not really) That greedy mentality is called....Capitalism; it's about the money. The more ethical systems are called Socialism...... it's about social well-being. Hell, even Communism, altho a failed economic ideology, has a very pro-social aspect to it. Carl Marx's gravestone read, as translated: May the working people of the world unite. Here we stab each other in the back. Capitalism is extremely anti-social.

Limbaugh's not? Is that relevant? And to compare USSR Communism to Socialism is ridiculous. Here we go with the 2nd S being Socialist." USSR Communism was no where like quasi-Soicialist countries like Canada, who's currency is even with ours after having an economy tied to ours.

During the so-called Roaring 20's the top .1% held the same assets as the bottom 40%. Here's a site that covers US and world wealth distribution. http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html

It would be interesting to see how many of the "rich elite" in the USA would have become rich had they been born in, say, Sudan or Botswana or Eritrea where there is no supporting infrastructure. The reason it is fairly easy (everything being relative) to become affluent in the USA is that we do have an infrastructure, primarily supported by TAXES, that is enabling. If you want to start a small business you have access to a literate and numerate workforce thanks primarily to public schools; you operate in a stable and lawful society thanks to taxpayer supported law enforcement, courts, etc., you have access to effective transportation and communication systems (FedEx doesn't work so well with 3rd world services); you have easy access to clean water and sewer services, and countless other systems working in the background, mostly provided by taxpayer support. I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure. So you're not happy that 50% of the people don't pay into that system and help support what they use? That 50% are the backs under which the top 20% possess 93% of all cash and 85% of all cash and asset. Actually the lower 50% pay 3% of the total tax bill, basically nothing, but still a little. Are you hoping the wealth disparity spreads even more?

Virtually every class moved up a few notches under Clinton and his higher tax table. Most classes took a shit under Reagan and esp GWB and their ultra-low tax tables. How is it that people are too stupid to understand there is a taxation sweet spot and that is no where in the 30% area? Probably the 50-70% are, but I'm just being silly and going from history. I will ask Jebus and get back.

You deny paranoid fantasies of conspiracy, yet then you just describe them. Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist when it come to the gov. Watch this: Wal street and greedy corps/rich people got us into the Great Repiblican Depression and the recent Great Repiblican Recession, as well as the savings & loan mess, Enron, etc, etc, motther fucking etcetera. Oh, who was that bailing us out? Could it be the gov? FDIC? Sure it was, the very org that you fear vs the orgs that you embrace; you support thebad guys and fear the good guys in a conspiratorial way. Actually many times you cite it's taxed, it's actually written off and therefore other profits not taxed: 1) The money paid to a worker in his paycheck is taxed. --> And the employer writes off this amount against their profits, rendering some of the profits untaxable. 2) When he spends that money on a beer at the convenience store, it's taxed. --> Yes 3) When that money is reported as income by the store owner, it's taxed. --> Yes 4) When the store owner spends it for improvements in the store, or to open another store, it's taxed. --> Wrong; the store owner writes off this amount spent to improve/expand against their profits, rendering some of the profits untaxable. Yes, you're paranoid and threrfore construct conspiracy theories. Yep and written off on the other end. Yep, but if you have so much money that you can live off the interest, other things are also true: - You are filthy riuch; prolly > 5M. - You could afford to donate all that int income and not pay any taxes. - You have accountants that can help you reinvest that $$, increasing your portfolio value and avoiding taxes. This is an age-old argument and to tax everything in a lesser amount is better than clumping taxes. If we do away with sales tax, we have to incr property tax, payroll tax, etc. Now we have incentivized buying and dissuaded hiring and home-owning. We can work this formula all ways and we would incentivize some things while dissuading others, this leads to imbalance. Bottom line is that roads, schools, etc have to be built and maintained, who's gonna pay for it; the lower 80% who hold 7% of all cash? Taxes need t be huge on the insanely wealthy; show me a time when taxes were low where the wheels haven't fallen off? It's a nice fanatasy to think we can have the top brkt in the 20's%, but it leads to disaster everytime; show me when it hasn't......you can't. So we're supposed to live on a deadly ideal that taxes are stealing while we watch our country go to the shitter? Brilliant.