| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/26/2011 12:24:40 AM · #51 |
I like drunk-Clive.
Message edited by author 2011-11-26 00:24:51. |
|
|
|
11/26/2011 12:25:40 AM · #52 |
| How about Ayn Rand, Karl Marx and Adam Smith in a three way free for all death match, no tap outs. The Nielsen ratings would rock. |
|
|
|
11/26/2011 12:28:51 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by geinafets:
I like drunk-Clive. |
Heh. Good. Although it is 5.30am now and i really should go to bed. (plus i'm running out of booze) |
|
|
|
11/26/2011 12:38:58 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Oh and by the way I do not watch CNN ( Communist News Network ) That is what we called it in the army. I watch FOX. I also don't watch NBC ( National Barack Channel ) Also from the army.... |
You know, i hate to bring up the obvious irony of you, an army man spending time overseas to 'bring democracy' to Iraq or wherever, but seemingly keen on pepper-spraying it to bits in your own country. It's all a bit of a sham really isn't it? |
I fought for our country to keep our freedoms and to keep our national language as English..... |
Isn't this the oath you swore when you joined the service?
I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
It doesn't say you just defend the parts you agree with, you swore to defend all of it. Including the bits about freedom of speech and freedom to assemble...even for people who have opinions different than you.
Message edited by author 2011-11-26 00:39:23. |
|
|
|
11/26/2011 12:53:31 AM · #55 |
| I'm going to bed now but there was something i said in a previous post (that was deleted along with other posts when it got a bit nasty) and that is that i like Adam and he seems like a lovely guy. These threads can get a bit shouty and finger pointing and it's easy to forget we are talking to actual flesh and blood people on the end of the anonymous computer. Just that really. |
|
|
|
11/26/2011 03:16:31 AM · #56 |
|
|
|
11/28/2011 10:13:37 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think there should be drug test mandatory for welfare.. |
Drug testing the rich is a much better idea. We've all heard the stories about how those Wall Street risk-takers love their cocaine. Hell, they must be high on something to behave the way they do. And didn't we just find out that welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the general public? (Ex: Florida.) Makes sense, since folks on welfare need to spend their money on things like, you know.... food and rent.
Oh but wait, I forgot, it's so much easier for the rich to hide their bad behavior, and so much easier for us to resent those dirty smelly disgusting hungry homeless jobless poor people.
Nevermind. |
|
|
|
11/28/2011 10:29:06 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think there should be drug test mandatory for welfare.. |
Drug testing the rich is a much better idea. We've all heard the stories about how those Wall Street risk-takers love their cocaine. Hell, they must be high on something to behave the way they do. And didn't we just find out that welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the general public? (Ex: Florida.) Makes sense, since folks on welfare need to spend their money on things like, you know.... food and rent.
Oh but wait, I forgot, it's so much easier for the rich to hide their bad behavior, and so much easier for us to resent those dirty smelly disgusting hungry homeless jobless poor people.
Nevermind. |
The reason I am for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients...I will ask one short question to prove my point. Do you want your tax payer dollars to be funding a drug habit? If a rich person is on drugs (and I have known a couple), They are not a burden on the taxpayers....if anything they pay more in to the system when they get caught.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2011 10:33:24 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think there should be drug test mandatory for welfare.. |
Drug testing the rich is a much better idea. We've all heard the stories about how those Wall Street risk-takers love their cocaine. Hell, they must be high on something to behave the way they do. And didn't we just find out that welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the general public? (Ex: Florida.) Makes sense, since folks on welfare need to spend their money on things like, you know.... food and rent.
Oh but wait, I forgot, it's so much easier for the rich to hide their bad behavior, and so much easier for us to resent those dirty smelly disgusting hungry homeless jobless poor people.
Nevermind. |
The reason I am for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients...I will ask one short question to prove my point. Do you want your tax payer dollars to be funding a drug habit? If a rich person is on drugs (and I have known a couple), They are not a burden on the taxpayers....if anything they pay more in to the system when they get caught. |
How come you respond to her and not to me?
Originally posted by geinafets:
Originally posted by geinafets:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
hey...hey...hey...All I was doing is doing a little venting. I am fed up with "business as usual". I think we need to start from the top down and reelect people that will make a difference. |
What? Um, you do realize that's what the OWS people are trying to do, right? So you agree with the OWS people? Maybe just not their methods? You've totally thrown me for a loop now. |
Adam, I'm still hoping for some clarification. |
|
|
|
|
11/28/2011 10:45:13 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by geinafets:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think there should be drug test mandatory for welfare.. |
Drug testing the rich is a much better idea. We've all heard the stories about how those Wall Street risk-takers love their cocaine. Hell, they must be high on something to behave the way they do. And didn't we just find out that welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the general public? (Ex: Florida.) Makes sense, since folks on welfare need to spend their money on things like, you know.... food and rent.
Oh but wait, I forgot, it's so much easier for the rich to hide their bad behavior, and so much easier for us to resent those dirty smelly disgusting hungry homeless jobless poor people.
Nevermind. |
The reason I am for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients...I will ask one short question to prove my point. Do you want your tax payer dollars to be funding a drug habit? If a rich person is on drugs (and I have known a couple), They are not a burden on the taxpayers....if anything they pay more in to the system when they get caught. |
How come you respond to her and not to me?
Originally posted by geinafets:
Originally posted by geinafets:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
hey...hey...hey...All I was doing is doing a little venting. I am fed up with "business as usual". I think we need to start from the top down and reelect people that will make a difference. |
What? Um, you do realize that's what the OWS people are trying to do, right? So you agree with the OWS people? Maybe just not their methods? You've totally thrown me for a loop now. |
Adam, I'm still hoping for some clarification. |
|
Sorry I didn't mean to ignore you.....I am not responding to one person and not the next...
That is tricky....however, the wealthy in this country are the ones giving jobs....and yes some of those job givers are on drugs. It is really tricky being in the business world and sometimes you have to make very odd decisions to come out on top. I owned a computer business for several years and found out how things really were. Everybody is trying to make a buck...There were people always trying to rip me off...both customers and big business..
|
|
|
|
11/28/2011 10:51:33 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
That is tricky....however, the wealthy in this country are the ones giving jobs.... |
Where are all of these jobs? |
|
|
|
11/28/2011 10:56:02 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
That is tricky....however, the wealthy in this country are the ones giving jobs.... |
Where are all of these jobs? |
I undererstand the lack of jobs...I have been out of work 2 years and just got hired in a company. Companies are scared of Obama. I see it every day every where I go. Obama's policies so far have been very anti-growth. For a pres in a recession he has been acting quite the opposite.
Message edited by author 2011-11-28 22:56:37.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2011 11:45:06 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
That is tricky....however, the wealthy in this country are the ones giving jobs.... |
Where are all of these jobs? |
Taco Johns in Loveland, CO is hiring!! Saw the ad in store today. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/28/2011 11:54:01 PM · #64 |
companies are NOT scared of Obama. au contraire, he is their whipping boy, if you will pardon the expression. companies want THE PUBLIC to be afraid of any liberal or humanitarian or even sensible policies Obama might pursue, were he more of a mensch.
are you not yourself just a little afraid of cokeheads in high places? I rather believe their cokeheadedness has already cost us more than we want to imagine. |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 04:05:23 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think there should be drug test mandatory for welfare.. |
Drug testing the rich is a much better idea. We've all heard the stories about how those Wall Street risk-takers love their cocaine. Hell, they must be high on something to behave the way they do. And didn't we just find out that welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the general public? (Ex: Florida.) Makes sense, since folks on welfare need to spend their money on things like, you know.... food and rent.
Oh but wait, I forgot, it's so much easier for the rich to hide their bad behavior, and so much easier for us to resent those dirty smelly disgusting hungry homeless jobless poor people.
Nevermind. |
The reason I am for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients...I will ask one short question to prove my point. Do you want your tax payer dollars to be funding a drug habit? If a rich person is on drugs (and I have known a couple), They are not a burden on the taxpayers....if anything they pay more in to the system when they get caught. |
Who potentially can harm the economy, and society in general, more? The welfare recipient who receives a few hundred dollars a month to help pay for food and rent, or the wealthy Wall Street executive who gambles with millions or billions of dollars of our savings? Fox News doesn't want you to think about that. Fox News also doesn't want you to know that, thus far in Florida where they have started drug-testing welfare recipients, they are testing positive for drugs at a much lower rate than the general public, 2 percent as opposed to 9 to 12 percent, respectively. Fox News wants to keep you looking in the wrong direction and blaming the wrong people, so Fox News has to keep stoking your resentment of the most vulnerable and least powerful. The rich are job creators? Sometimes, given certain conditions. As it turns out, your saintly job creators are also the biggest job destroyers. Fox News doesn't want you to think about that either because, hey, then you might start to actually think for yourself! |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 04:49:52 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
[url=//thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/24/303133/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-could-line-rick-scotts-pockets-but-it-isnt-saving-florida-much-money/] |
Not to blame you Judith, but just pointing out poor methodology when it exists. It is fallacious to compared the results of drug testing among welfare recipients (2% positive with a 2% abstention rate) and the results of a general survey of the public (listed results 6-18% of drug use) and conclude that welfare recipients use drugs less than the general public. It may or may not be true, but you cannot legitimately conclude it from these apples and oranges results. Either you have to survey welfare recipients or you have to blood test the general public and then compare similar methodologies. |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 04:50:42 PM · #67 |
I am also for "working welfare". In Louisiana there are families that have been on welfare for generations. Now granted, there are some of these that would love to have a job instead of collecting a check. There are plenty of jobs...both state and city...that could be filled at no additional expense to the govt. This would also build skilled workers for a workforce. The prob is, for some people, work is not wanted. These jobs could range from road construction / repair all the way to clerical positions. The people that would not want to do this would be forced to find other means...Welfare should be used as a suppliment to income, not all of it. I understand, bad economy / fewer jobs. If people were able to start getting off subsidies that in itself would stimulate the economy and help to create jobs while lowering taxes.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2011 05:06:04 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
If people were able to start getting off subsidies that in itself would stimulate the economy and help to create jobs while lowering taxes. |
This really makes no sense whatsoever cowboy. How does getting off welfare "create" a job? The job was apparently already there but unfilled. The economy is also not likely stimulated substantially as the gain of the salary would be offset by the loss of the government spending (it could be if the disparity between a welfare check and a minimum wage job is large, but if it's large how can you begrudge someone collecting half or a quarter of a minimum wage job? Do you think that leads to a comfortable life?) |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 05:31:22 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
... There are plenty of jobs...both state and city...that could be filled at no additional expense to the govt. |
If indeed such is the case, why is it that some people have been looking for jobs for several years now, all to no avail. I am not sure about the conditions in the USA, but in Canada, people line up for the most mundane of jobs at horrendous pay... that should give you an indication that not all people on welfare are lazy.[/quote]
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
This would also build skilled workers for a workforce. The prob is, for some people, work is not wanted. These jobs could range from road construction / repair all the way to clerical positions. The people that would not want to do this would be forced to find other means. |
I can't say that I agree with your premise. Working construction is not something that one can accomplish simply by applying for a job, unless of course you limit yourself to general labour work. I used to work construction (residential) and had to know how to read blueprints, get a propane handler certificate, know the building code ... etc. I can assure you that there is no problem whatsoever to fill general labour positions since the number of applications far outnumber the positions that need to be filled.
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
...Welfare should be used as a suppliment to income, not all of it. I understand, bad economy / fewer jobs. If people were able to start getting off subsidies that in itself would stimulate the economy and help to create jobs while lowering taxes. |
No argument from me on this one, but if you look at the amount of corporate welfare being doled out and the tax loopholes offered to big corporations you will note that the poorest of the poor are not being dealt with fairly.
That's my take on it anyways.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 05:50:09 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
...Welfare should be used as a suppliment to income, not all of it. I understand, bad economy / fewer jobs. If people were able to start getting off subsidies that in itself would stimulate the economy and help to create jobs while lowering taxes. |
No argument from me on this one, but if you look at the amount of corporate welfare being doled out and the tax loopholes offered to big corporations you will note that the poorest of the poor are not being dealt with fairly.
That's my take on it anyways.
Ray [/quote]
Yeah don't get me started on taxes....to sum that up in a short sentence I think we should have a flat tax...No deductibles, no loopholes....If it is set at 15% (completely made up number) Your tax liability should be %15. But I do have some more on this...This is one reason why I like the 9 - 9 - 9 plan
|
|
|
|
11/29/2011 06:32:33 PM · #71 |
| The problem with any flat/fair tax proposal is that it will meet vigorous resistance from the over 50% of the population who currently pay zero taxes. In fact, once you give people benefits of any kind, it is almost impossible to even try to curtail them or take them away - even if you explain to the citizen recipients that we cannot afford them any more. Once people get something from the government, they almost immediately think it is their God-given right to continue to receive it. |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 07:30:00 PM · #72 |
| why don't they just start taxing the churches that's a chunk of change. |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 07:32:13 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
why don't they just start taxing the churches that's a chunk of change. |
That would clearly violate your separation of church and state. If you can't even be a pastor and be president, then we don't want any of their filthy religious money!
(tongue planted firmly in cheek) |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 07:46:23 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The problem with any flat/fair tax proposal is that it will meet vigorous resistance from the over 50% of the population who currently pay zero taxes. In fact, once you give people benefits of any kind, it is almost impossible to even try to curtail them or take them away - even if you explain to the citizen recipients that we cannot afford them any more. Once people get something from the government, they almost immediately think it is their God-given right to continue to receive it. |
I know and that is what is sad.....The US can not afford to keep giving away "benefits". I have gone through life so far in the bottom tax bracket and I know how it is....you have a job...they take taxes...and then you get them all back. I think it would make sense for them to lower taxes...have no tax breaks....and keep it. However I believe that spending needs to be drastically reduced. There are tons of projects and grants that could be cut or done away with. Infact, (I got this off CNN) Last year the US spent $1.5 million to study the drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes. That can automatically be cut.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2011 07:58:27 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I know and that is what is sad.....The US can not afford to keep giving away "benefits". I have gone through life so far in the bottom tax bracket and I know how it is....you have a job...they take taxes...and then you get them all back. I think it would make sense for them to lower taxes...have no tax breaks....and keep it. However I believe that spending needs to be drastically reduced. There are tons of projects and grants that could be cut or done away with. Infact, (I got this off CNN) Last year the US spent $1.5 million to study the drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes. That can automatically be cut. |
This is a common complaint, but unfortunately cutting discretionary spending will not get us very far at all. In the 2012 budget non-defense discretionary spending is only $491 billion of $3.42 trillion (about 12%) and that includes things like education and the FBI. I'm guessing you wouldn't want to cut 100% of non-defense discretionary spending, but even if you did you would still have a huge budget deficit of about $500-600 billion. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/28/2025 10:34:42 AM EDT.
