I'd vote for Bush twice if I could

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You fail to address independent party voters, provide any actual data of your claims, or in fact make any serious claims, just talking out your lazy ass hoping to score a last minute blow against those who'll stand up for what's right over what makes them personal wealth.

And you continue to spew forth the usual liberal drivel, resorting to name calling, and spouting cliched correlations between Republicans and wealth. For once, I would like to hear a liberal argue with something that they weren't hand fed by the media.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I'm glad I could start some debate. I should conclude with one thought: Repblicans are good, Dems are bad.

Well, I am not a kid, and have been round the barn more than once.

In the many Presidential elections I have voted in (and I haven't missed any)I have always voted for the Rep. candidate. Not this time out. Kerry, who I really don't care for will get my vote.

Bush unwisely attacked the wrong country either because he was a great fool or lied, or both. Saddam was not a threat, yet he was billed as one. We knew where the WMDs were, yet we did not. We went prepared for war, but were completely unprepared for the aftermath. We needed allies, yet we alienated them. Just now is this administration learning lessons that should have been taken for granted on day one of taking office.

No, for all Kerry's faults, Bush needs to go.

A case in point right here. A statist & collectivist voting Republican.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Go back to the hole you were hiding in.

I'm considering the source - someone with anti-Bush propoganda in his sig. Of course you're going to disagree with me, newb.

What? Did you open your arrogant elitist pie hole again?

 

[CWRMadcat]

How about an end to these pointless "I'm voting for XXX candidate threads".

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: kage69
I'm interested in what these conservatives consider bad... not starting illegal wars? Bringing accountability back to DC? Working with our allies as opposed to paying or intimidating them? America as a whole needs to look at the immedaite picture. Forget politics, forget religion, forget the war - how about having a President who can speak for himself? Better yet, how about a president with a working knowledge of his native tongue? Kerry can speak French better than Bush can speak English. That says volumes not only about Bush, but of these conservatives and their ulterior 'merits.'

OK, this is the kind of liberal drivel that I'm talking about. First of all, to have an intelligent discussion, you need to state facts. By calling this war "illegal" is a subjective opinion of Bush-bashers. I personally feel the war was justified, and has been a huge success. Accountability back to DC? What exactly do you mean by that? Working with allies? Bush has the support and respect from many allies. Did you not hear how Putin recently said that Democrats have no basis for criticizing Bush on the Iraq war? And making fun of Bush's inability to speak well is not an intelligent argument aginst him. Just more liberal drivel. I guess that's the surface level concepts Democrats can understand. I mean, Michael Moore has pointed out how Bush messes up words sometimes. That's reason enough to vote for Kerry. Grow up!

I'm glad I could start some debate. I should conclude with one thought: Repblicans are good, Dems are bad.

You want facts?

Fact # 1

Fact # 2. Those "allies" were bought and paid for. The only other nation in the world where the majority of the population supported the invasion was Israel. Putin is a corrupt war criminal who should be tried in a court of law for crimes against humanity. Some guy to give you an endorsement eh?

Fact # 3. The US has never been as despised and feared worldwide as now. Bush has no support and respect from any allies unless you count a few impopular governments. Blair is taking a beating and might be gone soon. The same with Howard in Australia. The Polish, the Ukrainians, the Bulgarians etc. are not happy with the situation in Iraq. The Spaniards are gone. etc.

And Fact # 4. "Article six of the U. S. Constitution says, in part, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The Geneva Conventions of 1949 covering the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians in wartime are treaties the U.S. government promoted, signed, and ratified. They are therefore the supreme law of the land. Neither the President nor the Secretary of Defense has the authority to alter them or to choose whether or not to abide by them. President Bush's invention of such hitherto unknown categories as "illegal combatant," "evil-doer," or "bad guy" and his claim of a unilateral right to imprison such persons indefinitely, without charging them or giving them access to the courts and legal counsel, is a usurpation of the Constitution. It is precisely why the United States should have ratified the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. It is intended to deal not only with genuine terrorists and people like Saddam Hussein but also with the kind of crimes President Bush has committed." Chalmers Johnson

President Bush should be standing trail nevermind for relection. Even to vote once for a usurper of the Constition of the USA as President of said Constitution would be perverted.

 

[halik]

i think im gonna stay back and watch this one.

It makes you wonder, though, how many people like that does fox-news-fair-and-ballanced produce. I would tend to symphatize with the old republican idea of small goverment and ballanced spending... but those days are long gone

 

[Train]

True or False:

The President Declares war.

False, Congress declares war. Are there enough Republicans in congress to create war on their own? No, Democrats also needed to vote for war, which included Mr Kerry, at the time, it was the cool thing to do, but now war is not cool, so Mr Kerry is against it. If the next cool thing is to jump off bridges, thats where you will find Mr Kerry.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Go back to the hole you were hiding in.

I'm considering the source - someone with anti-Bush propoganda in his sig. Of course you're going to disagree with me, newb.

It's noob ya noob.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Train
True or False:

The President Declares war.

False, Congress declares war. Are there enough Republicans in congress to create war on their own? No, Democrats also needed to vote for war, which included Mr Kerry, at the time, it was the cool thing to do, but now war is not cool, so Mr Kerry is against it. If the next cool thing is to jump off bridges, thats where you will find Mr Kerry.

umm just out of curiosity,
where were you when powell was at the UN showing all the WMD locations? where were you when Bush said theres evidence of WMD in Iraq? It was in cinci OH btw...

Do you not REMEBER the talk of it's for our security and the big fear of Saddam using WMDs against us? The war was indeed manfucatured out of shady evidence and lies.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot accept your arguments as factual.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Bush unwisely attacked the wrong country either because he was a great fool or lied, or both.

The war was approved by Congress. Dems included. Didn't Kerry vote for the war?

Saddam was not a threat, yet he was billed as one.

It is a fact that Saddam was a threat to millions of people. It's common knowledge that he murdered thousands of innocent people, and showed no signs of stopping. They weren't necessarily Americans, but since when do we discriminate whose lives we save?

We knew where the WMDs were, yet we did not.

If you truly believe that Iraq had no WMD's, you are a fool. You do not argue with facts, but with propoganda the media has spewed forth. Think for yourself!

Kerry did indeed vote for this war. Of course it was based on the bait that is still being swallowed by many others. He should have not. Too bad, however he was not the one putting out the "facts". Bush loses here.

Saddam was a threat like Pinochet. Like the Shah. A petty tyrant. Is that a shame? Sure, it is. However "The War President" doesn't have 1/10th the sense of Reagan who managed to help bring down the USSR without firing a shot. Bush is lacking.

As far as WMD's, all you have to do is two things. Show what they were and where they were, and that we knew before all about them as we were told. Since they were so critical, you know how they were moves, and have the sat. photos to back it up. We knew all of this, yet allowed them to be moved without observing the fact? No, you and yours are much too clever for that to happen.

I have always believed I am a fool. I know very little compared to what can be known. You are wise, or so you imply. Why is it then that the wise have not the wit to show evidence worth warring over regarding these WMD's? Not guesses, not conjectures, not plans after the fact.

Just show this fool the weapons and the proof that wise Bush knew all of this before the war as they have said. I have been waiting many months. Enlighten us.

 

[IndieSnob]

Wow, dear mr OP sir.

I think I have to award you huge kudos for making one of the largest assumption posts ever.

It's so nice to see that you think that every liberal/democrat has a substandard iq, loves mtv, and loves smoking pot while receiving a blowjob. Now if I were to make assumptions, like say, oh 'all republicans hate the poor, hate gays, hate minorities, blah blah blah', you'd crap your elitist pants. Your post does nothing to prove any point, but instead you got what you wanted, flame bait for others so you could sit back and have a chuckle. I'll make you a deal, untill you can come up with real educated data that all liberals are poor stupid white trash, please don't post anymore. You've allready proved that you don't know anything except being a partisianed elitist snob.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Wow, dear mr OP sir.

I think I have to award you huge kudos for making one of the largest assumption posts ever.

It's so nice to see that you think that every liberal/democrat has a substandard iq, loves mtv, and loves smoking pot while receiving a blowjob. Now if I were to make assumptions, like say, oh 'all republicans hate the poor, hate gays, hate minorities, blah blah blah', you'd crap your elitist pants. Your post does nothing to prove any point, but instead you got what you wanted, flame bait for others so you could sit back and have a chuckle. I'll make you a deal, untill you can come up with real educated data that all liberals are poor stupid white trash, please don't post anymore. You've allready proved that you don't know anything except being a partisianed elitist snob.

Not to defend Republicans, but the modern day liberal certainly has bought into Marxism, lock, stock and barrel. Progressive taxation, labor and union laws, minimum wage, wealth redistribution all have their roots in Marxism. It is sickening to me that people still believe in this crap, decades after the entire theory was ripped to shreds.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot emphasize how much I am supporting Bush/Cheney this election. I'm sure that sounds nuts to some of you kids, who have been brainwashed into thinking it's not "cool" to be a Republican. There seems to be a mindless conformity to Democrats. It's the party for the non-thinkers. It takes risks to do what is right, and to stand up for traditional values. I feel that the democratic party caters to the demographic that doesn't fully understand politics or economics. They say "tax the rich" and it seems to make sense. They say "save the environment at all costs" and it makes us feel good. They say "provide services and income for the unemployed, and make the workforce pay for it" and we say why not.

But Republicans are intelligent enough to understand that while these concepts seem ideal, and make us feel warm and fuzzy, they don't always make sense logically. (Health care for all Americans is a great idea! But who's going to pay for it?) Republicans try to acheive the same results (if not better) using more a logical, intelligent approach. (Instead of giving fish to someone, we prefer to teach him to fish for himself. Instead of giving money to the poor for an instant temporary solution, Republicans might offer a long-term solution that doesn't provide instant gratification, and one that may even benefit the middle and upper classes too!) This is often mistaken by liberals as being uncompassionate, when in reality, it's actually a more compassionate approach.

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet), they play on that perspective, and realize that they can appeal to that point of view. They reach the MTV crowd and tell the kids that Democrats are cooler than the old fuddy-duddy Republicans. Heck, Bill Clinton smoked pot and got hummers. Cool! They know that blue collar society isn't going to understand the intricacies of economics, so they misrepresent Republican economic reform as "taxing the poor, and giving to the wealthy". And at a surface level, that makes sense for most Americans without a background in economics.

Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

I am a registered Republican as is my father and my grandfather. Bush does NOT represent me, my family, or my conservative (economically speaking) principles. He goes against everything I've been taught about economics and protecting my wealth. How is spending 80 billion dollars "liberating" foreign peoples helping me? I will not be voting Bush in this coming election, and I've put my money where my mouth is by donating to the Kerry campaign, as has my father, and BTW don't lump entire groups of people together in overly generalized stereotypes, it makes you seem ignorant.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot emphasize how much I am supporting Bush/Cheney this election. I'm sure that sounds nuts to some of you kids, who have been brainwashed into thinking it's not "cool" to be a Republican. There seems to be a mindless conformity to Democrats. It's the party for the non-thinkers. It takes risks to do what is right, and to stand up for traditional values. I feel that the democratic party caters to the demographic that doesn't fully understand politics or economics. They say "tax the rich" and it seems to make sense. They say "save the environment at all costs" and it makes us feel good. They say "provide services and income for the unemployed, and make the workforce pay for it" and we say why not.

But Republicans are intelligent enough to understand that while these concepts seem ideal, and make us feel warm and fuzzy, they don't always make sense logically. (Health care for all Americans is a great idea! But who's going to pay for it?) Republicans try to acheive the same results (if not better) using more a logical, intelligent approach. (Instead of giving fish to someone, we prefer to teach him to fish for himself. Instead of giving money to the poor for an instant temporary solution, Republicans might offer a long-term solution that doesn't provide instant gratification, and one that may even benefit the middle and upper classes too!) This is often mistaken by liberals as being uncompassionate, when in reality, it's actually a more compassionate approach.

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet), they play on that perspective, and realize that they can appeal to that point of view. They reach the MTV crowd and tell the kids that Democrats are cooler than the old fuddy-duddy Republicans. Heck, Bill Clinton smoked pot and got hummers. Cool! They know that blue collar society isn't going to understand the intricacies of economics, so they misrepresent Republican economic reform as "taxing the poor, and giving to the wealthy". And at a surface level, that makes sense for most Americans without a background in economics.

Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

I am a registered Republican as is my father and my grandfather. Bush does NOT represent me, my family, or my conservative (economically speaking) principles. He goes against everything I've been taught about economics and protecting my wealth. How is spending 80 billion dollars "liberating" foreign peoples helping me? I will not be voting Bush in this coming election, and I've put my money where my mouth is by donating to the Kerry campaign, as has my father, and BTW don't lump entire groups of people together in overly generalized stereotypes, it makes you seem ignorant.

Instead of voting for Kerry who is not much better, have you ever considered the Libertarian Party candidate: Badnarik?

Badnarik for President

If you feel abandoned by the Republican Party (as I did a couple years ago), the LP may be the party for you.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I've seen the same theory as everyone else has about why minimum wage laws are structurally wrong, and we all know the theories about high taxes constricting overall economic activity (except when the taxes are spent more effectively than individuals could manage alone - i.e. the highways, courts, police and military which allow both domestic and international trade, and make everyone, but especially the wealthy, better off than they have ever been. ).

But back to minimum wage laws; I've yet to see a single complete argument that tells me how to replace minimum wage laws with a free-market system that will pay a full-time labourer enough to live on. If someone can develop such a system, they will virtually cure structuralized unemployment, so I for one would be highly interested in knowing about it.

I'm aware that this might be seen as flame-bait by conservatives who know that there is no traditional answer that works here, but maybe someone with more economics background than I have has seen something off-the-wall that could work. I'm a reluctant supporter of minimum wage laws because I frankly can't see a way around them, but I don't like them.

 

[Riprorin]

Kerry's quite clearly stated his opinion on the minimum wage, lol:

"I am for raising that minimum wage. So I am very much in favor of individual efforts?federal government and others?moving to help create the ability for people on the wage to be able to make it."

?Washington, D.C., April 15, 2004

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I've seen the same theory as everyone else has about why minimum wage laws are structurally wrong, and we all know the theories about high taxes constricting overall economic activity (except when the taxes are spent more effectively than individuals could manage alone - i.e. the highways, courts, police and military which allow both domestic and international trade, and make everyone, but especially the wealthy, better off than they have ever been. ).

But back to minimum wage laws; I've yet to see a single complete argument that tells me how to replace minimum wage laws with a free-market system that will pay a full-time labourer enough to live on. If someone can develop such a system, they will virtually cure structuralized unemployment, so I for one would be highly interested in knowing about it.

I'm aware that this might be seen as flame-bait by conservatives who know that there is no traditional answer that works here, but maybe someone with more economics background than I have has seen something off-the-wall that could work. I'm a reluctant supporter of minimum wage laws because I frankly can't see a way around them, but I don't like them.

You are approaching the "problem" from the wrong angle. I highly suggest you listen to this lecture by economist Dr. Reisman on interventionism.

Interventionism

Here is an article on Interventionism by Dr. Reisman as well:

What is interventionism?

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot emphasize how much I am supporting Bush/Cheney this election. I'm sure that sounds nuts to some of you kids, who have been brainwashed into thinking it's not "cool" to be a Republican. There seems to be a mindless conformity to Democrats. It's the party for the non-thinkers. It takes risks to do what is right, and to stand up for traditional values. I feel that the democratic party caters to the demographic that doesn't fully understand politics or economics. They say "tax the rich" and it seems to make sense. They say "save the environment at all costs" and it makes us feel good. They say "provide services and income for the unemployed, and make the workforce pay for it" and we say why not.

But Republicans are intelligent enough to understand that while these concepts seem ideal, and make us feel warm and fuzzy, they don't always make sense logically. (Health care for all Americans is a great idea! But who's going to pay for it?) Republicans try to acheive the same results (if not better) using more a logical, intelligent approach. (Instead of giving fish to someone, we prefer to teach him to fish for himself. Instead of giving money to the poor for an instant temporary solution, Republicans might offer a long-term solution that doesn't provide instant gratification, and one that may even benefit the middle and upper classes too!) This is often mistaken by liberals as being uncompassionate, when in reality, it's actually a more compassionate approach.

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet), they play on that perspective, and realize that they can appeal to that point of view. They reach the MTV crowd and tell the kids that Democrats are cooler than the old fuddy-duddy Republicans. Heck, Bill Clinton smoked pot and got hummers. Cool! They know that blue collar society isn't going to understand the intricacies of economics, so they misrepresent Republican economic reform as "taxing the poor, and giving to the wealthy". And at a surface level, that makes sense for most Americans without a background in economics.

Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

I am a registered Republican as is my father and my grandfather. Bush does NOT represent me, my family, or my conservative (economically speaking) principles. He goes against everything I've been taught about economics and protecting my wealth. How is spending 80 billion dollars "liberating" foreign peoples helping me? I will not be voting Bush in this coming election, and I've put my money where my mouth is by donating to the Kerry campaign, as has my father, and BTW don't lump entire groups of people together in overly generalized stereotypes, it makes you seem ignorant.

Very well thought out and put, sir. Nice to see someone who isn't blinded by their party, whether it be left or right.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot emphasize how much I am supporting Bush/Cheney this election. I'm sure that sounds nuts to some of you kids, who have been brainwashed into thinking it's not "cool" to be a Republican. There seems to be a mindless conformity to Democrats. It's the party for the non-thinkers. It takes risks to do what is right, and to stand up for traditional values. I feel that the democratic party caters to the demographic that doesn't fully understand politics or economics. They say "tax the rich" and it seems to make sense. They say "save the environment at all costs" and it makes us feel good. They say "provide services and income for the unemployed, and make the workforce pay for it" and we say why not.

But Republicans are intelligent enough to understand that while these concepts seem ideal, and make us feel warm and fuzzy, they don't always make sense logically. (Health care for all Americans is a great idea! But who's going to pay for it?) Republicans try to acheive the same results (if not better) using more a logical, intelligent approach. (Instead of giving fish to someone, we prefer to teach him to fish for himself. Instead of giving money to the poor for an instant temporary solution, Republicans might offer a long-term solution that doesn't provide instant gratification, and one that may even benefit the middle and upper classes too!) This is often mistaken by liberals as being uncompassionate, when in reality, it's actually a more compassionate approach.

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet), they play on that perspective, and realize that they can appeal to that point of view. They reach the MTV crowd and tell the kids that Democrats are cooler than the old fuddy-duddy Republicans. Heck, Bill Clinton smoked pot and got hummers. Cool! They know that blue collar society isn't going to understand the intricacies of economics, so they misrepresent Republican economic reform as "taxing the poor, and giving to the wealthy". And at a surface level, that makes sense for most Americans without a background in economics.

Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

tinsuj lives! - do another one "rob9874"
[edit]: ok, nevermind, I see he goes on to defend this position, my apologies. I agree with the "think for yourself" part, btw.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DaiShan
I am a registered Republican as is my father and my grandfather. Bush does NOT represent me, my family, or my conservative (economically speaking) principles. He goes against everything I've been taught about economics and protecting my wealth. How is spending 80 billion dollars "liberating" foreign peoples helping me? I will not be voting Bush in this coming election, and I've put my money where my mouth is by donating to the Kerry campaign, as has my father, and BTW don't lump entire groups of people together in overly generalized stereotypes, it makes you seem ignorant.

Seem? That was awful generous of you.

 

[heartsurgeon]

i'm pretty sure that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of taxes paid, and the liberalism espoused on this forum.

pay taxes - Republican

pay little or no taxes - Democrat

amazing how those that aren't in a position to support themselves and pay taxes, know so much about what is wrong with the country, and how to fix it....

why am i not surprised.

you should all thank God for us "rich" conservatives who pay gobs of taxes,
your living on our dime.

and don't give me that crap that i couldn't have "made it" without the system, so i need to pay more in..
the real question is how come YOU didn't "make it" WITH the same system...

like i said...unable to become self-supporting tax payers, yet "smart enough" to know all the answers..

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i'm pretty sure that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of taxes paid, and the liberalism espoused on this forum.

pay taxes - Republican

pay little or no taxes - Democrat

amazing how those that aren't in a position to support themselves and pay taxes, know so much about what is wrong with the country, and how to fix it....

why am i not surprised.

you should all thank God for us "rich" conservatives who pay gobs of taxes,
your living on our dime.

and don't give me that crap that i couldn't have "made it" without the system, so i need to pay more in..
the real question is how come YOU didn't "make it" WITH the same system...

like i said...unable to become self-supporting tax payers, yet "smart enough" to know all the answers..

Yes, you're right, HS. Without you and your taxes, I don't know what I'd do without your welfare. How can I ever repay you? Oh let me bow down to you and bless you. :roll:

I'll let you know something about me. I've never had ANY assistance in my life that I haven't earned. I was on unemployment for two years, which, and get this, my liberal self payed in, amazing eh? I will be getting money from the government to finally go to college also, but I see no problem in that. I've had alot of hardships in my life, not due to any fault or lazyness of my own. At the end of my unemployment I wanted to get a job, but instead chose taking care of my father who had Lou Gehrig's Disease, all so he wouldn't have to rot away in a funeral home. And now that those things are over, I'll gladly take a little help to get a BA in College and earn my way through the system. But to think for one second that I'll ever praise someone so full of themselfs and high and mighty like you when I've always earned things on my own, it ain't happening. Sorry, but you can take your self praise and shove it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i'm pretty sure that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of taxes paid, and the liberalism espoused on this forum.
...

Wow, you're just as bad as the OP with your sweeping generalizations. Oh brother. Do you actually have anything to support your little theory there -- or is it pure hot air and arrogant BS as usual?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i'm pretty sure that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of taxes paid, and the liberalism espoused on this forum.

pay taxes - Republican

pay little or no taxes - Democrat

amazing how those that aren't in a position to support themselves and pay taxes, know so much about what is wrong with the country, and how to fix it....

why am i not surprised.

you should all thank God for us "rich" conservatives who pay gobs of taxes,
your living on our dime.

and don't give me that crap that i couldn't have "made it" without the system, so i need to pay more in..
the real question is how come YOU didn't "make it" WITH the same system...

like i said...unable to become self-supporting tax payers, yet "smart enough" to know all the answers..

Must be that you are so much smarter than me. And, using those smarts you enabled youself to achieve the lofty place you now (apparently) occupy. From that perch you are able to gleem from us dummies our savings and dreams and from you peers of wealth you gleem companionship and agreement. Such is life, I suppose. In time, however, perhaps a change will take root. A change in what is important and what is not. That you may pay more tax than I is of no consequence to either of us. It is what we have after all these taxes are paid. Why might it be that some will have much and others little? Could it be that in reality my money is going to you from which you pay taxes? The taxes I can no longer afford to pay cuz you have my money...

 

[heartsurgeon]

The taxes I can no longer afford to pay cuz you have my money

nope..doesn't pay taxes (a victim, i "took" their money)

your sweeping generalizations

nope...doesn't pay taxes

I've never had ANY assistance in my life that I haven't earned. I was on unemployment for two years, which, and get this, my liberal self payed in, amazing eh? I will be getting money from the government to finally go to college also, but I see no problem in that. I've had alot of hardships in my life, not due to any fault or lazyness of my own. At the end of my unemployment I wanted to get a job, but instead chose taking care of my father who had Lou Gehrig's Disease, all so he wouldn't have to rot away in a funeral home. And now that those things are over, I'll gladly take a little help to get a BA in College and earn my way through the system.

definitely not a tax payer...indeed, a typical liberal...feels entitled to living on my dime, and then has enough self-esteem left over to spit in my face.

liberals are embued with high self-esteem, even when they are unemployed, non-tax paying, kids.

You guys crack me up...