discussion comment
16 years ago
Okay, Bobbyl, this link may get you closer to the full transcript; I won't have time to search further for the rest of the day...
http://theindependentview.com/?p=278
(It also includes linked YouTUBE audio.)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Bobbyl, I'll try to get that transcript.
MG, you repeatedly beg for us to end the discussion ("I think we're all done here."). This is a favorite tactic of the left. After answering questions never asked, ignoring the actual issues being discussed, and having thrown out loads of facts that add up to zero relevance or impact, claim victory and declare the discussion closed! Pathetic.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Bobbyl, you said, "it's pretty clear to me that Obama is no socialist..."
Have you heard his public radio discussion from earlier this decade? He very clearly explains at length why he disdains the U.S. Constitution (it represents a persistent "fundamental flaw," and does not support his desired redistributive policies), and how he considers the Warren Court not radical enough because they "never implemented redistribution...for economic justice."
The "fundamental change" to America he promised in his closing statement during the third debate is aimed at fixing these problems he sees in America. That is, "destroying the very philosophy" of capitalism, and instead "spreading the wealth around." His own words reveal him to be a socialist. I find no other interpretation sensible.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Everyone's (including my own) attempts to communicate rationally with MisterGuy remind me of that scene from "The Princess Bride," where Wesley and Vicinny (sp?? -- Wallace Shawn's character) are having their verbal sparring match.
Wallace Shawn spouts off a bunch of irrelevant nonsense, and Wesley says, "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." Response: "WAIT 'til I get going!"
MG, you do posit conclusions bearing no relation to the facts you reference, and you do answer contentions never offered. Peace.
discussion comment
16 years ago
MG, you either do not understand factual data, or don't care to be bothered by it. Every item in your last post is either demonstrably false, or misses any relevant point.
Consider again the Clinton era. His first two years were so horrible, it lead to the conservative revolution and the dems loss of congress for the first time in about 40 years. Gingrich and his new majority said they could balance the budget within about 4 years, but Clinton said "NO! It will take at least 8 more..." (meaning, not during his term or terms). Gingrich & Co. did it in 3, Clinton signed their budget, and then he tried to claim credit for it!
The dot-com bubble was absolutely indicative of the Clinton era: an appearance that all was hunky-dorey, absolutely no substance, and an overinflated value for nothing. That it "burst" shortly after Clinton departed does not mean it was representative of Bush.
And the 2001 recession you cite was Clinton's! Bush inherited that, along with having to immediately deal with terrorism (since Clinton never wanted to be bothered with that). Bush did an amazing job of sparing us an unimaginable collapse in the economy during 2001-2003.
Now, as for the response you gave about tax rates. My claim was "the 'rich' pay more of the overall taxes into the federal revenue under Bush than they did under Clinton." My claim is 100% accurate, although your stats on the rates are uncontested. The relevant facts are that revenues increased following the Bush tax cuts, and that the percentage of those revenues that came from "the rich" increased.
You are wrong about every claim you make. And Americans obviously prefer capitalism (supply-side economics), as Sen Obama has tried to pretend like he supports it, following his accidental revelation of the truth that he is a socialist. He just said [paraphrasing], Government policies in America should support capitalism.
Guess you've gotta hate him now, too? Nah, you know he's lying. He hates capitalism, and he hates America. That is why he says our constitution is "fundamentally flawed," and why he says he wants to "fundamentally change" America.
discussion comment
16 years ago
If they're actually just lapdances, then they are not sex, but often they get intimate enough to claim that descriptor.
discussion comment
16 years ago
For the record, MG:
-- the "longest sustained post-war economic expansion" (which lasted from the late 1980's through about 2007) was the result of Reagan saving us from Carter. (Republican saving us from Democrat; conservative saving us from liberal)
The current downturn coincided with the liberals re-acquisition of congress in 2006.
-- the "rich" pay more of the overall taxes into the federal revenue under Bush than they did under Clinton.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Interesting info, MisterGuy, and thanks for the research. Liberal policies are destructive to the economy in general, and the ultra-leftist--indeed, socialist/Marxist/communist--desires of Sen Obama will destroy the greatness of America if he gets his way.
Since you were so generous with your reply, I extend to you this offer: I will pay you $20,000.00 if Obama becomes president and he keeps his promise not to raise any of my taxes (as I currently make less than $250k). You get the money in January of 2013, if the condition I just stated is met. But if indeed my taxes increase during those four years, you must pay all of the difference.
Easy money, right? I can find no liberal to take the wager, as they all know Obama is lying.
discussion comment
16 years ago
TUSCL_Brother, for some reason, your last post made me think of a funny song by Bloodhound Gang called "A Lapdance is so Much Better when the Stripper is Crying" from their album "Hooray for Boobies."
For the record, I disagree with the "thesis" of their song; I prefer when she's moaning, or emitting sighs and anxious whispers in a slow, steady rhythm.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Wow, jablake! I hope your last post was all for ironic humor...
discussion comment
15 years ago
I doubt any TUSCLers consider this hobby to involve "molesting" others, but if one did see it that way, he should abandon the hobby at once.
discussion comment
16 years ago
MisterGuy, you claim that the current mess is due to GOP policies. Not nearly.
In 1977, President Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), intended to force banks to loosen their lending standards so that more people could buy houses. The progress toward that goal was very slow, and in 1995, President Clinton greatly strengthened the CRA. President Clinton also warned banks and lending institutions that Attorney General Reno would pursue them with legal consequences if they did not lend more to those who could not traditionally qualify for mortgages.
Then, Illinois Sen Barack Obama trained members of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) on ways to intimidate lenders into making those riskier loans (tactics included protesting in bank lobbies and in front of the houses of bank officers). But the lenders still tried to avoid that destructive practice, pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Government Sponsored Enterprises) were reluctant to bundle securities with those risky mortgages. Sen Obama and his partner, William Ayers, funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN, and led them to shift tactics: lobby democrats in the U.S. Congress to force Fannie and Freddie to accept those risky mortgages in securities bundles.
Several people, notably Sen McCain, sounded warning alarms that these bad lending practices would lead to a credit crunch, a sub-prime meltdown, and a housing market collapse. The democrats, notably Sen Dodd and Rep Frank, said, “we see no problem.â€
Sen McCain was proven correct. Sen Obama, meanwhile, was a catalyst for causing the crisis.
discussion comment
16 years ago
MisterGuy, supply-side economics assumes people naturally tend to first spend their limited resources on themselves and those for whom they care, rather than giving those resources to strangers and hoping for the best. That assumption is consistent with reality. So, in spite of your desire to end any debate in this country on economic theory, it's not quite the "end of [the] story."
Sen Obama also wants to stifle the discussion. He said, "I want to destroy the very philosophy of supply-side economics." He wants to end debate on many topics, claiming that we must simply accept his viewpoint and shut up about it all. Like all Marxists, he knows his ideas don't stand up well to debate. I don't go for being silenced by political leaders.
discussion comment
16 years ago
kansasgent, words mean things, and how we use them is important. If everyone agreed on your definitions of the terms in your post, most conversations about such topics would differ greatly from how they currently go. But I don't think most people accept your usage of those terms.
However you define the terms, and however you would choose to label me, here's my political philosophy in overview: I want to preserve the fundamentals of the Nation as founded. I want the constitution to be regarded as meaning exactly what it says, and any changes to it should be made through the amendment process, not from the bench. I reject socialism and all its variants and applications. I recognize that supply-side economic theory is based on assumptions about human behavior that are consistent with reality. I think term limits for legislators would solve many problems, because it would change their decision calculus for the better ("what is best for my constituents?" instead of "how do I keep my job as a congressperson?").
I consider myself "conservative," but you may choose to label me differently, based on your previous definitions.
discussion comment
15 years ago
Good attitude and knows how to please
trumps
Hardbody
You, judyjudy, are a fine example to prove that point.
discussion comment
16 years ago
jablake, your points about R's and D's have some merit; that's why "conservative" and "liberal" are far more descriptive and useful terms. In those terms, liberals do favor more central government involvement in people's lives, and conservatives favor less.
As for President Bush, he is not a conservative. His spending spree demonstrates this. But he's been superlative on counter-terrorism, even if he's fouled up in other areas.
To help alleviate the problems caused by both R's and D's in congress, I favor term limits for both legislative bodies, as we have for the executive. It will take a constitutional amendment.
discussion comment
16 years ago
On the "Upscale v Seedy" question, I tend to prefer "seedy," but with caveats. The primary reason to go to a club is to get far more than a dance, and "seedy" clubs tend to have higher mileage. But "dirty" is not good when it refers to the furniture and the facilities. I'd like it to be evident that the club management spends at least a little bit on janitorial services.
"Upscale" features like fancy food or dress-codes are negatives. I don't care to eat in a strip club, and I do not want to be turned away for wearing comfortable attire. I practice good hygiene and wear clean clothing; that should be enough to merit admittance to a strip club.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Capt America and Superman are both Republicans.
Batman is a Republican, and "The Dark Knight" has Bruce Wayne taking a decidely "W"-esque approach to fighting the terror spread by the Joker.
Aquaman is a member of the Green Party.
Wonder Woman is unaffiliated. She doesn't trust any of them, knowing how they lie.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Dear MissFrankieXXX,
Are you bothered by the constant gossip in the dressing room? Or do you participate therein?
discussion comment
16 years ago
Lynne Austin
discussion comment
16 years ago
The few times dancers have walked up to me, grabbed my crotch and asked, "would you like to fuck?" -- those were appealing tactics.
discussion comment
16 years ago
The most direct answer to your original question is unfortunately another question: "Does it really matter?"
She may or may not have known; many dancers lack any compunction against prevarication.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Cyn pointed out the fact that it makes no sense for a dancer to be rude, as it lowers her likelihood of earning more money. I have an idea why some dancers ignore that fact.
Many dancers feel insecurities, even if they are fine and lovely people. Perhaps their low self-esteem comes from maltreatment by family members, or other causes. Some of these ladies see their co-workers as such competition, they practically regard them as enemies. They adapt the unspoken attitude towards those other dancers: "You must fail, so I may succeed." That ironically leads them to rude behavior, counter to their own success.
discussion comment
16 years ago
There is one at El Paso's "Red Parrot" who aggressively tries to ruin others' enjoyment. She makes herself difficult to ignore.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Gov Palin has been the target of a bunch of nonsense. That's the political climate these days, it seems.
I am sad that many people seem indifferent to Sen Obama's anti-American attitude, and his radicalism. He is truly dangerous.