KelliJ

A couple questions come to mind... Are primaries and caucuses a matter of right? That is, do people have a right under law to participate in them the same as we have the right to vote?

IF she gets the nod, which looks very doubtful at this time, she would do well to pick Obama for VP. He would bring in a lot of votes, more than Bill, but I don't think as many as a traditional moderate male VP candidate (other than Bill) would. If Obama gets the nomination he would be a fool to add Hillary to the ticket. Anyone willing to vote for Hillary will almost certainly vote for Obama should he get the nomination, but there are many...myself included...who will defect from the Obama camp and vote Republican if Hillary is anywhere on the ticket. Obama has everything to lose and nothing to gain by bringing her along.

"If you spend all of your time arguing with people who are nuts, you'll be exhausted and the nuts will still be nuts." Dilbert

I think a lot of that can be traced back to the idea that people tend to write in a fashion that mimics what they read, i.e. trash in=trash out. A son of a friend of mine doesn't know a transient verb from a proper noun, yet he consistently gets perfect and near perfect scores on his college essays. I feel strongly that it is because he read a lot of the classics growing up and was kept away from tabloid crap. With the advantages of computers comes the liability of easy entertainment. Kids are spend far too much time playing video games that do nothing more than challenge their adrenaline production (ok, so some may become ace pilots of unmanned aircraft someday). Add to that a culture that promotes poor language skills and you have a recipe for a knowledge base that is nonexistent. Without a good base in reading skills the ability to learn is only inhibited in all areas including mathematics. Without a good grasp of mathematics the sciences then become problematic. How can one expect a student to pass a basic physics class without so much as a passing comprehension of algebra and preferably calculus? I know it will never happen, but keeping kids away from video games and tv until they reach the age of 10 or 12 would do wonders for the performance of our youth in higher education as well as when compared to their peers around the world.

NOW you tell me...lol!

Bullshit. Your claim was bogus, data posted proved that, but you're to high on yourself to admit your error. So where are all those benefits the wealthy are supposedly enjoying?

Your entire point is ridiculous! You are comparing receipts without considering expenses. Just because the wealthy get almost as much or the same in services from the government does not mean they are getting any special benefits. It does mean they are paying a hell of a lot more for the same thing. As my link shows, the lowest quintile gets an 8/1 return on their taxes, where the upper quintile get less than a 1/2 return. Who is getting the government benefits? Obviously the lower portion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that, but obviously it take a college professor to not see it. BTW, what are these "government benefits" you claim the wealthy get?

Jane gave John $50 and she gave Bill $100. According to you and your twisted way of thinking that is all one needs to know...that Bill got more than John. Fine. That is, if that is all you want people to know. But if you want them to know the FACTS then you have to ell them the whole story. And that includes telling them that the day before Bill had given Jane $125 and John had given Jane $25. According to the link I posted and your OWN ADMISSION you were totally wrong in claiming the wealthy get moe than the poor. Stick to physics, pal. Your grasp of finance is weak.

The difference being when you referenced the source you conveniently left out the ratio of dollars paid/dollars received. I used that ratio to correct your misconception that the wealthy are the beneficiaries of a disproportionate amount of government spending and, in fact, showed you that the poor are the ones who collect a disproportionate amount of services. There is enough reason to justify a progressive tax scale without having to toss around misleading information. Next time try to be a bit more careful. It is rare that I ever complain about paying taxes. I believe in a progressive tax for two simple reasons. 1: Collecting taxes from the poor is like squeezing blood from a turnip...ya just ain't gonna git much. 2: The old saying "it takes money to make money" is very true. Once one has some extra funds to play around with and invest, the amount of effort expended to earn each additional dollar becomes less. I worked hard to get to the point where I don't have to work at all. I have a good income and don't mind paying a bit more in taxes than someone who is still trying to make their way in the world. Like I said, I agree with you on this for the most part. I just feel you are hurting your case by presenting incomplete and therefor misleading data.

Nothing Misleading? Uniform distribution? Where the hell do you get that BS from? "We find households in the lowest quintile of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, while households in the middle quintile received $1.30, and households in the top quintile received $0.41." I would expect college professors who fly their own airplane using public airports and ATC get a few dollars more in government services each year than a family supporting themselves and living just above the poverty level. It's right there, Professor. Lowest quintile get more than $8 back in gov. spending for each $1 paid in taxes while the top quintile get back 41 cents. What is uniform about that? The report shows that, contrary to what you have been claiming even in the face of this report from A SITE YOU RECOMMENDED, the wealthy do support the poor, including the undeserving poor. You claim is bogus and unsupported. Of course we need to collect more taxes from the wealthier segment of society than from the poor. That we agree on. But you don't need to go posting misleading and incomplete information. You say my share will be $10,300? GOOD!

And you can post the data you wish to post. That's how forums work.

You posted it.

I'm going to volunteer some help, Professor. (Yeah, I know...who woulda thunk) The chart you posted is compelling, but would be even more so if, instead of just showing where the dollars went, it also showed where those dollars came from, i.e. Joe Smith paid $10,000 in taxes and got back $12,000 in services. You are at liberty to post it. However, it shows very clearly that the "generic taxpayer" isn't just supporting the poor, she's also supporting the wealthy. I was trying to help you out by suggesting a modification to your post. You don't need to cop an attitude. Your graph is meaningless as is since it only tells half the story.

I'm going to volunteer some help, Professor. (Yeah, I know...who woulda thunk) The chart you posted is compelling, but would be even more so if, instead of just showing where the dollars went, it also showed where those dollars came from, i.e. Joe Smith paid $10,000 in taxes and got back $12,000 in services.

Thank you for helping to prove my point. Both of your examples describe Clinton's policy toward Bosnia and Haiti very well.

If you feel Wiki is wrong then, by all means, change it. But for now that was the definition that was posted here (by someone other than myself) for purposes of discussion. If you can find another definition by an objective source then post it. (You have friends?)

Sorry we got a little off topic. God Bless Harry and the Royal Family. Hope Harry's service will not float over too many heads on this side of the Atlantic. Harry has my eternal respect. Too bad he is only third in line (I think) to the throne.

Just in case you missed it, here again is the definition of "chickenhawk" as posted by Amazon and linked via another forum to Wikipedia. Merriam-Webster only lists definitions for a bird and for a sexual predator, neither of which I'm sure you would accuse either Clinton or Bush of being. Clinton did actively avoid military service, Bush did not since he did serve in the National Guard. The definition doesn't distinguish between combat service and non-combat service. We all agree that Bush strongly supports his own military actions. No argument there. Clinton also strongly supported his sending troops to Bosnia and Haiti. That is a matter of historical record. As you see, Kallend, I have not changed the definition, you have.

No. I don't think he qualifies on the HAWK part. He didn't proclaim "I want to be a war president". No, he didn't say those exact words but he did send troops to Bosnia. And Haiti. And, instead of pulling forces out of Somalia, he sent thousands more. He also, by his OWN ADMISSION, actively evaded the draft. You can only exclude Clinton from chickenhawk status by changing the definition to suit his situation. Clinton wasn't a HAWK in the accepted sense of the word. He wasn't a pacifist either, but the world isn't divided into hawks and pacifists. CHICKEN, OK. Ok, so you are changing the definition. Nice.

No. I don't think he qualifies on the HAWK part. He didn't proclaim "I want to be a war president". No, he didn't say those exact words but he did send troops to Bosnia. And Haiti. And, instead of pulling forces out of Somalia, he sent thousands more. He also, by his OWN ADMISSION, actively evaded the draft. You can only exclude Clinton from chickenhawk status by changing the definition to suit his situation.

So you agree then that William Jefferson Clinton was/is a chickenhawk?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That dog just dont hunt It must really chap your ass that so many in the right wing actually are fully supportive of groups like the C of CC etc Or does it It don't make no difference to me who they support. Once again you are making suppositions based on you prejudices against anyone who doesn't fall in step behind you. www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qh290hB_Vw

Same as you. My thoughts of him are the same today as they were a week ago. So, in that respect, no progress has been made on your part. Of course, you could be one who thinks everyone should follow his lead... "We've taken care of everything the words you read, the songs you sing, the pictures that give pleasure to your eye"

And anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is a right-wing racist warmonger from a rich family. Talk about an "if you ain't with us the you're against us" attitude.

Why do you even waste your time posting garbage like that? All one has to do is take one look at it and it is obvious that the whole mess is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo without an ounce of substance. You don't actually think anyone is going to take it seriously, do you? It would be disgusting if it weren't so funny!