Lucky...

You've just described EIC. Oh, say Europe where their massive wealth would be taxed at a higher rate?

And even after tax increases, they would still continue to. If they want to ship more jobs out, put import tarriffs inplace. Also, the gov employs a lot of people too.

If you had a clue what fascist meant, you'd be embarassed. Fascist embraces corporations and hates organized labor - get a clue. And MArxist, somewhat true. Oh, BTW, his gravestone reads: WORKERS OF ALL LANDS UNITE. Work your ass off, and Join the super rich, there is plenty of room left at the top! Fascism rejects that concept - learn slowly so as to not look foolish. As for socialism doesn't work that is rejected everytime you see this: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ You really have no idea, do you?

Not just liberals, a very few conservatives are smart enough to realize that many rich got that was thru inheritance, theivery or any of several ways other than work. There inlies the problem; too many loopholes that bring the real tax % from 35% tops as it is now to way < 1/2 that. I'm guessing your collegiate resume looks like a blank plain, white piece of paper. That's a utopian dream, let's hear the Michale Jordan story one more time. And we'll pretend it's representative of reality.

And they are still making a disproportionate amount more, the wealth spread is growing exponentially and as the rich use money as score, millions go w/o HC in one of the richest countries in the world and you rubber stamp that. That's subjective and with the gov the most indebted ever by any country as a gross number, millions w/o HC and the income spread widening, it's hard for you to make that argument. It's the government's money. Oh, then how do we pay for roads, military and other things?

You've just described fascism; corporations writing the laws for the country - I couldn't agree more. Healthcare fro profit; only in America

Really? There's a group of Army Rangers that would disagree with you...just because the mass media you read doesn't talk about a conflict, doesn't mean that one isn't happening somewhere! I doubt under any presidency have we gone without any battle, bloodshed, fighting or whatever you want to call it. What I'm talking about are EXPENSIVE, long, sustained conflicts oe wars. Examples: - WWII - Korea - VN - Iraq/AFG Wars The Gulf War was relatively inexpensive, I guess that's becuase a true war hero was in charge of it, rather than war cowards like Reagan and GWB. I know we are always fighting some battle somewhere, but the biggies are the ones that cost us the most and jack up the debt ;that was OBVIOUSLY my point.

Right, the new revolution of change, repeated w/o any stability and when it goes to fuck, they just need more time for it work.

I see and w/o doing a search, I don't recall you bitching about this when your party was in control. As for debt, let me see, when did the debt get paid down or at least stabilized? - When the top brkt was 91% under Eisenhower and he got us out of war. - Under Clinton when he raised taxes to a paultry 40% top brkt and kept us out of war / cut the military / cut spending. When was the debt the worst as in the most increase and the most unstable? - Any and all times of war - When taxes were cut, esp Reagan cutting the top brkt from 70% to 28% in 6 years. - When Bush cut taxes and got us into the Iraq War So I think we see a theme here, the deficit/debt increases the most when: - We are at war - We cut taxes The deficit/debt heals the most when: - Taxes are 40% top brkt or higher - We are not engaged in war It's not difficult, kids, just repeat the things that work, avoid the things that don't, regardless of who's in power politically.

I'd like to be the first to welcome Mike to our party.

YOUR words not mine Your endless emoticons, not mine. I guess that's what you do when you have nothing to add. You dont get it do you I reply to you because you are funny Keep it going

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time. True. At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal. I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway. Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check. You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent. I can see that, but it would do little to deter the criminal element, defeating the point of the law in the first place. It'd serve as nothing more than a nuisance for the law-abiding. Right.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time. True. At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal. I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway. Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check. You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent. Now we're advoacting deterrence theory, a utopian principle that has never been found to be consistent. Look at the murder rate, as convictions and/or executions increase, does the murder rate go up, down or up and down irratically? Right, deterrence is fodder for politicians to peddle.

That's what I wrote before I read what you wrote; I agree.

No, I don't advocate running all sales through a gun dealer. The instant check system can be modified to allow private sellers to call and get a simple yes or no to the sale without revealing any private information. This in no way pushes more restriction on gun dealers, nor any more responsibility. Yes, it would push them toward the black market. But, as i said, it would also enable us to hold the seller partially responsible for the buyers actions if no attempt was made to check the buyers background. Ok, so you do advocate the clearance of all gun sales thru the government. Also, how can you hold a private party liable for following these rules? An FFL is liable thru his license, training, testing, acknowledgments of proper process, now you want to burden private gun owners of all of this knowledge and responsibility, even as it changes.

You like it that some DON'T get the health care they need right now, because it saves you money? Don't worry, the biggest crybabbies for "free" HC come from the right, just after they denouce it. Those close to them who ask, "I thought you were against it, why are you using it?" Then flip-floppers then say, "If I'm paying for it, I might as well use it." OR "Hey, I deserve it more than those other people." Know how to make a liberal? Take a conservative and put them in a place of need.

Yes you are but, you ignore the facts for your hero How are things in Cloud Cuckoo Land, anyway? Never been there What do you think? Show me the evidence where Obama or his crowd falsified anything.

Yes you are but, you ignore the facts for your hero How are things in Cloud Cuckoo Land, anyway? ROFLOL

As I've said and you ignore, public popularity doesn't drive everything or anything other than teh person in office. In a Representative Democracy, or whatever way you want to semantically spin that, we only vote in the boobs, the boobs do what they want REGARDLESS OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. People like you don't want a TRUE DEMOCRACY where every issue is voted upon, so here ya go, put your dislike for the majority not ruling on an issue and smoke it; you asked for it.

Yes it was public opinion, just like it was in Nov 08 and that didn't work well for you. See, even if Obama is unpopular in Nov 1012, the voters have the other option and that is hugely fugly. You guys have to quit trying to grenade the Dems and start fixing yourself, I heard I think it was Lindsey Graham saying the same thing. Slander campaigns go so far, then the voters are faced with other option and that can work counter-productively. The public at large may be against the pub option, but they are for allowing pre-existing conds, so the voters, by the stats/polls, have neither choice and the recent economic meltdown has been attached to the right, so it will take time for us to forget about the mess the R's gave us. It's best if your side drops the attacks and focuses on getting better within. I mean 3 straight election cycles getting your party's ass handed to your party should be enough teach even a fool. Forgot to mention I am looking forward to the next election cycle You? And you forgot to address any issues I posted too. Yes I am, historically it would be unusual if the Dems didn't lose seats. However, the Dems will still have a majority in both chambers. If you don't think so, make a bet like Mike was too afraid to and bet me that the R's will have a majority in either chamber. The bet is, if the R's have a majority in either chamber, you win. If the R's don't gain a majority in either chamber, I win. The payoff is that the loser will stay out of here in any username for 3 months. Are you gonna be like Mike (and be too afraid to bet)?

Where would that be? It doesn't look like it when you take a poll of the American People. Really? WHere is it that he isn't admired, liked, etc? Also, the other side; if an election were to happen this week, would any Republican have a chance against him? Enough time hasn't passed for us to forget about the GWBs', Palins', McCains' and so on. To add: - Libby - Rove - Cheney - Al the rest of the scum and the mess they left. And as we see teh recovery very clear, this will be an amplified remake of the Clinton recovery and voters will start to see. And even if they dislike the Dems, they can't stand the R's, so even if only by comparison, the D's are and will be admired.

YOUR words not mine Your endless emoticons, not mine. I guess that's what you do when you have nothing to add.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer. Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book. So then do you advocate private gun sales go thru a gun dealer? If not, more restriction on gun dealers only pushes the bad guy to the private sector and does nothing to keep guns out the hands of the crook/murderer.

Where's my check? Thx tho, you called me a professional poster. You'd think if I was getting paid that I would spell-check. A little deduction and insight would go a long way.

Sure, you want to demean Obama because an org called the Nobel Peace Prize committee gave Obama the award for which Obama didn't apply. You claim to be Mr Nice Guy, I think we all see yiour colors showing here. I think as an American you would be proud, or at least not care, yet you're outraged that they gave it to him. Funny how Carter got one too, it appears the Republican Nazi charm is felt all over the world. As for 12 days, the award was really for the voters of America for not putting in place another RW fascist Nazi pig. But I don't know that they can give an award to 69M people. Still as relevant, Obama is one of the few to actually give the monye away to charity. It eats you up that Obama is so admired. Oh well, hopefully you'll get lucky and there will be a total meltdown of the US economy.