discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Hi Bobbyl,
Thank you for the endorsement. :) The Wall Street Journal years and years ago went on and on ranting and raving about how fast food pushers had to be protected by Congress. How holding these companies legally accountable was tantamount to paternalism. Individual responsiblity and choice was their mantra. Yet, when it comes to certain mood altering and or performance enhancing drugs The Wall Street Journal is 100% in favor of big beautiful all knowing and all powerful government. And, still they yelp about individual responsibility i.e. to be a slave of the government's whims as well as yelp about individual choice i.e. the individual chooses to rot away in a government prison and or have his wealth stolen for non-government approved choices. Typical "conservative" nonsense i.e. small government until they wish to force their b.s. and filth on others. I prefer the liberal agenda compared to this "conservative" nonsense.
Too many conservatives can't comprehend that their "pet projects" for more government can have very nasty unintended consequences. Love the phoney War on Terror? Wouldn't it be wonderful if that government war ended up eliminating the "free market" for decades and decades? :) You know nationalize all business and let everyone get the goodies of being on the government tit. I sure as hell think so; especially when government is busy stealing my freedom and wealth. I sure as hell expect some compensation for loss of freedom in the form of support for my own "pet projects" like social justice and the right to all manner of goodies! You know just like the government privileged merchants of war.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Isn't the supposedly "conservative" Palin a wealth redistributor? I heard something about her bragging about taking profits from the oil industry and giving it to Alaskans.
Hell, why not take the profits from the fast food industry and give those to Alaskans. Everyone should know that fast foods are probably more deadly than mood altering drugs! I *hate* fast foods and actually wouldn't mind too much if the nit wit government waged war against them.
Here's a thought: Wealth redistributing may sometimes be a necessary evil to protect society. Of course, I'd much rather have small limited government if that was a real choice.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
". . . John McCain, who once stood by the president despite a tense personal relationship, let loose with an unsparing rebuke of the Bush administration's failures. He chastised the president for the 'conduct of the war in Iraq for years, growth in the size of government' and for ignoring the will of Congress. 'We just let things get completely out of hand,' McCain told The Washington Times. McCain's attack read like a Barack Obama ad, only angrier." http://www.newsweek.com/id/166834/page/1
I don't think being a "maverick" generally hurts McCain. The "Republican base" assuming that means Republicans supporting President Bush pretty much needs to be rebuked, rejected, and renounced vigorously so there is no mistaking McCain for President Bush. Listening to McCain except when he starts up with the "terrorist" nonsense leaves me feeling more kindly toward him. (Regardless, I wouldn't vote for him or Obama.)
I can even feel somewhat kindly toward Palin, until she starts up with the "terrorist" nonsense or God wants war b.s. If God wants war, then let the big boy himself wage it. Geez, these religious nuts are irritating and scarey (yes, that includes the Holy Warriors of 911).
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Perhaps I'm one of the very few who has any feeling for this issue. As a youngster I was brainwashed as part of my religious schooling that of utmost importance was the "Golden Rule" i.e. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. For me that is completely non-negotiable.
When government courts openly instruct jurors not to apply the Golden Rule, what I see is unadulterated evil that makes me sick to my very soul. Hey, that is an example of what government courts are all about and perhaps most Americans are loving it. I would like to think other people born and raised in America have the same strong belief in the Golden Rule. I don't believe that is the case even amongst the religious. My neighbor had no qualms about voting for a conviction because he needed to get back to work and couldn't follow the English of the case. Yes, he repeatedly told the government masters that his English was very poor. How would like to have people like him deciding your fate---so much for the original intent of a jury of your peers. :( But, I'm supposed to be all pro-America with a government like this? Yeah, right. :(
discussion comment
16 years ago
Assuming the government's War on Drugs has any real value in saving lives (and unfortunately I think it may), then when President Bush basically decided hey HUGE opium production in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting over or isn't controllable how many thousands of Americans died as a result of this drug scourge surge. What is it, Afganistan is now producing 95% (or some absurd percentage) of the world's opium and heroin production when under the Taliban it had almost been eliminated. Yes, seems like another gross security failure by President Bush, but that can somehow be spun into a "spectacular success."
To the government lovers: If President Bush has to order the killing of 500,000 non-American non-combatents in order to secure or save the lives of 4,000 Americans is that an acceptable trade-off in your opinion? Does this equal a "spectacular security success"?
Sorry, I don't see valuing American lives that greatly over the lives of other innocent people. Just another reason, imo, to detest flag wavers who believe butching thousands of innocents is a fair trade in order to save a far lesser number of innocent Americans. Of course, God may agree American lives are so much more valuable and in that case who am I to argue with an omnipotent being.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"On other security matters, Bush has been a spectacular success."
LOL! President Bush is almost a total failure.
"The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a car bomb was detonated below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
It was the government's gross incompetence under President Bush that allowed the second WTC attack to happen. Furthermore, the government under President Bush has pretty much allowed open borders which would allow terrorists to enter freely and the number of inviting unsecured targets is practically unlimited.
I do believe President Bush's nutjob War on Terror throwing away 100s and 100s of billions of dollars and killing hundreds of thousands??? or merely tens of thousands of people may have appeased the Holy warriors from immediately attacking again in the U.S. I still remember Bin Laden smiling before the camera happily explaining (according to interpreters) that U.S. will destroy itself and there is no need for another attack in the U.S. What an accurate prediction that seems to be at this point in time. President Bush has adroitly made enemies all over the world and this is especially impressive given all the original sympathy expressed the world over.
President Bush is a mass murderer who would easily be convicted by a jury in many parts of America. Perhaps this "brave" man would be willing to stand trial before an international court of law? :)
Sorry, you give thumbs up to torture, mass murder, and fraud as well as massive government. President Bush is at best just an ignorant incompetent who has no idea of right from wrong.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"There was a war of states rights, but perhaps, unfortunately, the wrong side won."
100% agreed that the wrong side won.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 of the American Constitution
'No state shall make anything but GOLD & SILVER coin a tender in payment of debts.'" http://www.buildfreedom.com/e-gold.htm
This is a provision that I would LOVE to see the completely corrupt government courts enforce. You think you'll find a judge or State that will be limited by Article 1, Section 10? LOL! Good luck with that one. The government courts, State and Federal, are committed to giving Federal Reserve Notes value.
The Constitution is a joke and fraud. Geez, just look at decisions on Sixteenth Amendment. What a disgrace.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
the powers of the Federal government are limited and enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"The Constitution mentions literally zero economic policy requirements."
Doesn't need to. Supposedly, the powers of the Federal government are limited and enumerated. The government's courts have basically said the Federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wishes in economic matters under the "interstate commerce clause." I say that is a blatant fraud. :) (Yes, I'm a nobody.)
So, if the Federal government is actually limited by the Constitution that eliminates at the Federal level the implementation of marxism and socialism.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Other than Ron Paul are there any real conservatives in Congress? Oh, if you believe that President Bush is a conservative the whole issue becomes a huge pointless joke. If President Bush is a conservative, then the Constitution can be interpreted to allow a completely communist or socialist system of government. And, imo, that is a preferable agenda to that of supposed "conservatives" like President Bush.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Oh and if the Constitution has any value or meaning why is the country flooded with federal social programs?
It is my understanding that the government courts fraudulently use the interstate commerce clause to justify wealth transfer programs.
Anyway, there is always the possibility that a federal judge honestly believes that interstate commerce clause allows for these social programs. Anyway, if they didn't use the interstate commerce clause they'd find some other excuse because their law training teaches contempt for the law----it's malleable and changing and etc.
Reading the opinions of so called "conservative" Supreme Court justices is just as disgusting as reading it from liberal Supreme Court justices. The main difference is liberal justices seem to be a hell of a lot more honest about what they're doing. The "conservatives" are just as much judicial activists from the opinions that I had read.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Hi clubber,
No flaws clubber. You need to read what I wrote just a little more closely.
So the U.S. Constitution allows for the federal government to be killing people. That ain't the point. The point is so called "conservatives" whimpering there is *no money* until they wish to start killing people. The argument wasn't the Constitution doesn't allow for that, which is very debatable. The issue is whether the budget will allow for it or not. So, I hear endless whimpering from so called "conservatives" that this social program is too expensive or that social program is too expensive, but give 'em an opportunity to be spending billions and billions on killing people and suddenly there is no shortage of money.
The Federal government has plenty of money to give away. If nothing else, then the gold in Fort knox and its endless land holdings. But, the real power of the Federal government to give away money is the fact the it now operates a fiat currency and can print money endlessly. Yes, technically the Federal Reserve authorizes the Treasury to print the money and federal government issues the Federal Reserve IOUs paying 3% interest in return (at least that is how I remember the details--the Federal Reserve had provided me with some very educational information on the creation of endless dollars). A beautiful scam that U.S. Supreme Court approved . . . I believe by a 5-4 decision.
The U.S. Constitution is the biggest joke or fraud in the land. The government courts have contempt for it as do most members of Congress.
Oh, these supposed "conservatives" overwhelmingly have no qualms about voting for this social program or that one as long as the amounts aren't too obscene or it is a pet interest. Hell, supposed "conservatives" were probably voting to give ACORN millions.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
One of the things that truly disgusts me about so called "conservatives" is they whimper about fiscal responsibility or there is no money for this social program or that social program and then when it comes time for killing people or giving away money to the wealthy billions and billions and billions appear and money is no object. They fully comprehend the power of printing money non-stop; it is a sweet scam assuming the currency doesn't collapse. The government has done an excellent job of preventing that btw.
To me the only real choices appear to be huge government with endless war and an expanding prison complex or huge government dedicated to throwing money at social problems. Gee, I prefer NOT to have endless war and an expanding prison complex. I guess that means I'm a socialist! With President Bush allegedly representing capitalism, socialism or communism looks more attractive by comparison.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Hi how,
Yes, I understand that. In fact, that is why I was a Republican for most of my life. What some Republicans fail to understand is that for me at least there is a tipping point. This may or may not be a good example. I generally consider abortion to be murder. However, I do not want the nit wit government to start jailing women or doctors for what in my mind should be thought of as a very serious crime. Many people are of the mentality that if there is a crime, then there has to be a law. I don't buy that at all. The law may create even more evil; especially if it means more government to enforce the law. So, let's say a women is raped and the nit wit government forces her thru all manner of legal terror to have the child. Guess what? In my opinion, that nit wit government needs to be compensating her fully for the cost of raising the child as well as her lost opportunities. IOW, more government is practically mandated and it can be much more government.
Another example: Perhaps also a poor one. The nit wit government decides to wage a massive war against drug abusers (abuser being define as anyone who even looks at a joint or other non-approved drug). Suddenly, the police believe they have the right to start searching people at random and the vile government courts agree with them. It gets worse. Because of all the arrests the judges being real smart asses and totally corrupt decide to use various procedures to take away people's rights (poor people's rights, actually) to a jury trial in both civil AND criminal cases. Wonderful, just what I would expect of government lovers. Unfortunately, for me this is a tipping point. If the nit wit government has the right to randomly search me (treat me like an animal) and has the right to eliminate my right to a jury trial (at the time understood to be a jury of one's peers), then guess what? I want compensation from that nasty government. Compensation could be in the form of more real welfare benefits for the poor and middle class. IOWs, if the government is going to get large and abusive, then the rules change. Rip off the rich who support this filth and rip them off big time. A wealthy friend many years ago was saying the criminal justice system wasn't bad at all. Yes, for him it was nothing to make bail and pay tens of thousands of dollars to high priced attorneys. For him it was a joke. The worst thing was just the arrest. But, his family didn't suffer and the tens of thousands paid to attorneys didn't even dent his wallet. Oh, it was a 2-bit gun charge: He shot out the tires of his own car to stop it from being stolen. Yes, the gun grabbers need to be feared. The clowns who attempted to steal his car----long criminal records of theft and violent crime.
Basically, so called "conservatives" support all manner of more government. My response is well if the government is going to get big for these "good deeds," then it needs to get much bigger to do other compensating "good deeds." Yes, it *might* make everyone poorer. I've got news for you: It may be better for *everyone* to be poorer than to have a wealthy class who doesn't feel the whip of government. If poor people are going to suffer rotting in jail because they can't meet the government's obscene bail demands, then the wealthy asshole who support government need to suffer the same way. If a government judge laughs at a poor person wanting a jury trial, then the wealthy supporters of government need to feel the same pain.
It would be wonderful if the country could have less government and a free market, that ain't in cards. So since more government is the only choice socialism, imo, is the way to go. Yes, imo, it is ok if it is a smaller pie for everyone. Maybe wealthy government lovers might learn their lesson? LOL! :) Naw, as long as they don't feel the whip of government they generally don't give a crap.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"MrG, the mistake you make, as do many, is that you conflate "wrong track" or a desire for change with support for Obama and liberal policies."
IMHO, I don't think he made that mistake. Here are his actual words: "This is a 'change election' because the American public is super-overwhelmingly of the opinion that the country is on the 'wrong track' and in need of a serious course correction. Whomever embodied that perceived needed change would have won this election cycle, and that person was Obama, period."
McCain *could* have *embodied that perceived needed change* (if he was a different person). He like many "conservatives" were in love and may still be in love with President Bush. Everytime I hear that clip where he is bragging about voting or supporting the President 90% of the time, if true, it confirms to me that he is a lemming or cuts dirty deals or actually supported the President. The Wall Street Journal was madly in love with President Bush. And, my thought was if President Bush represents real conservative values, then I'm ashamed of ever supporting conservatives.
A very wealthy wildly pro-U.S. gentleman who fled Iran was explaining to me why he loved President Bush. He is a muslim, btw. Anyway, he explained to me how the corrupt religious courts stole millions and millions of worth of property from him. And, that basically even though he is a muslim, he believed these extremists needed to be smacked down by the U.S. and just was praying that President Bush would topple the corrupt Iranian regime.
After, listening to him praise the U.S. and President Bush, I told him that as far as I was concerned the U.S. is an extremely corrupt country and his loss of property at the hands of corrupt religious courts in Iran sounded like my experience in U.S. courts. After hearing that my losses were "only pennies" he dismissed them as being trivial and not worth complaining about. Yes, to him due to his extreme wealth my property was "only pennies" and to many wealthy filth that would be the response. That in my opinion is a good reason to level the playing against wealthy filth that have that mentality. Normally, I wouldn't want the government to steal any of his money. But, if he thinks it is ok for the courts to steal "only pennies" from me then what the hell he needs to be reduced to my "poverty level" and kept there!
Generally, my interest in redistributing the wealth would be near zero----with a corrupt country and arrogance to boot that changes radically and the Democrats don't look bad in the least. ***Start redistributing even if it ends up making everyone less well off---it is a question of freedom from people who have no qualms about an oppessive government as long as the oppression involves stealing "only pennies" or abusing poor people.*** The government needs to steal that gentleman's wealth BIG TIME so he can start appreciating "only pennies."
As far as those who love America because they rose from poverty to riches. That wonderful. And, if a corrupt court steals your hard earned property will you still be yapping about what a wonderful country the U.S. is? For some the answer is definitely a big YES. A crooked court system could leave them penniless and they'd still be yapping this is the greatest country on earth. OK, it is good to see a person with that type thinking isn't holding himself to a different standard. He loves the government unconditionally; apparently.
It was amazing to me that the gentleman could not seem to comprehend that stealing a thousand dollars from me very well could be like stealing a million dollars from him. In fact, it could be much worse! Even after the Iranian religious courts were stealing millions and millions from him, he still had millions and plenty of luxury. True, he had to flee his country of birth. I would LOVE to be able to flee my country of birth (the U.S.) and stay above a povertty existence. I thought I was free from this country, but health and property values collapsing trapped me here. A neighbor was telling me to fight for my "birth right." I don't have the health or the money for any fighting. All I could hope for is those who believe this is such a wonderful country get their money stolen by either a corrupt court or a redistributor of wealth. Then maybe a few wealthy assholes *might* learn.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"I would like to see people who make such inflammatory statements to back them up with documentary evidence - or retract them."
AHEM, I clearly heard the soon to be leader of the free world espouse a belief in spreading the wealth. Definitely, that reeks of hating America and also sounds like a tenet of Islam. What next he opposes charging interest? If McCain was truly interested in fighting for our freedoms, then he'd punch the spreading wealth espouser smack dab in the nose for starters. Then, a little water boarding just so the youngster learns the proper chain of command. Send 'im to church every Sunday with a Bible, easy language version, and presto he should be on his way to recovery.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"Eight out of 10 Americans say they think about their happiness at least once a week. Some might say we are obsessed with it. We invented the smiley-face, made Oprah a billionaire and spend millions on self-help books and yoga. But for all our efforts, we're far from the happiest country. We rank 23rd in the world—behind Bhutan and the Netherlands. Malaysia even came out ahead of the world's sole superpower." http://www.newsweek.com/id/96107
Actually, I'm a little shocked the U.S. is in the top 30. It does come as no surprise to me that some Cubans who fled Castro wanted to leave ASAP after experiencing the U.S. firsthand. Imagine people being happier in Castro's Cuba than the U.S. I knew an old Cuban who was very anti-communist and welfare, but he'd rather have been allowed to return to Cuba even if forced to apologize than be stuck in the U.S. Oh, since he fought against Castro with U.S. help some "deep" thinkers would consider him a "terrorist." LOL! I guess sorta like President Washingtion could be considered a "terrorist."
I meet people from all over the world here in Miami. Some are very pro-U.S. and others think just take the money and endure. A pro-U.S. ladyfriend who has travelled the world says that in her opinion the main benefit of living in the U.S. is that she can be with her friends and family. She describes the U.S. as one of the better countries in the world as long as you don't have too much contact with the government. She has had very negative experiences with the IRS.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"It certainly wasn't the terrorists who sent America broke this time. It was America that sent America broke."
Would it be fair to say the governmnet spent a trillion dollars on the war on terror? How much did they force financial institution to spend of this war? My bank was sure as hell complaining. I think a good deal of the spent government money is "black hole" aka secret for security reasons. Also, don't forget all the pork that was demanding for a yes vote. Government wants to throw away billions on an endless terror war . . . well, gonna have to sweeten the pot to buy votes to get the money. Typical government bribery.
Plus, there is the cost of paying for crippled and no longer productive vetrans. Costs just built in for the next few decades. No small or limited government for America.
Anyway, a trillion could definitely be the straw that broke the camel's back so to say.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
I definitely want fundamental change. It is a corrupt country with corrupt laws and a huge prison complex, where basic rights like the right to a jury trial are ignored and judges have placed themselves above the law. The right to bear arms? Not much of a right when it was 5-4 and the majority seemed to have no problem with the government infringing left, right, and center with the right to bear arms.
The term limits is actually a little more complex than I would think at first glance. I'm concerned some lowlife gets elected and seeing no future in politics due to term limits is very contemptuous of his constituents and sells his power to the highest bidder. Yes, I realize that happens now. However, some politicians are a little discrete and choosey because they love the perks of office. One huge source of the problem, imo, is the rules controlling the politicians giving one senator or representative too much power over what should, imo, be an equal ranking senator or representative. Get rid of all the seniority crap.
A buddy got to speak with and chew out Alcee Hastings (the buddy is the same one who fell in love with McCain after speaking with him). The representative explained that you have to cut a load of dirty deals to get any power or benefits for your constituents. What little I know of these rules they were designed to breed extreme corruption and give control to a tiny few. It is total sleaze. Just as the government is total sleaze; it isn't a great country. Very far from it.
Speaking of total sleaze here in Miami years ago there were lawsuits attempting to get a paper trail so that election results couldn't be hacked without getting detected. Of course, the federal court gave thumbs down to that plea because electronic voting is secure. LOL! Yep, computers are just so famous for their security. :) A neat scam was pulled on a gambling issue. The State of Florida found 70,000 electronic votes or some such number and then had the nerve to claim they knew the computer was undercounting 3 months earlier. Yeah, right. Have a known computer error that undercounts votes and you wait 3 months for the election to take place and then you announce the error. What a bunch hoodlums and the judges can be far worse.
Greatest country? Tell me about it when you get screwed. A friend, an old guy like me (same buddy as above), swears he was innocent of all manner of serious drug charges (I've always known him to be an anti-drug nut and flag waver). Basically, he was facing loss of all his considerable real estate (he is an extremely hard worker and actually helps the less fortunate; a great person except for his flag waving) as well as being behind bars for life. After a hell hole of judicial games he was finally found to be innocent. Anyway, despite his ordeal he was still a flag waver. Even if his property was wrongfully stolen by the government and he was sentenced to life for a crime he didn't do, I think he'd still be a flag waver.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Terrorism or freedom fighting can be waged by a handful of people e.g. McVeigh. The nitwit government should start blowing up every corner of the U.S. where he may have had any support? Gee, what a brilliant way to fight "terrorism." It is just another government scam to put money into the hands of wealthy merchants of war.
So a handful of "terrorists" err holy warriors mainly from Saudi Arabia pull off a huge attack in great part thanks to incredible government incompetence----gross incompetence bordering on criminal. So does the corrupt U.S. government start attacking Saudi Arabi? LOL. Of course not. It didn't even want Bin Laden. Why attack Iraq? Oh gee, what a wonderful way to print money for President Bush's oil buddies. Nothing to do with 911, but facts aren't easily understood by U.S. cattle. The country is a total fraud.
This mortgage scam wasn't any secret in the least. The Wall Street Journal was going off the deep end over it years earlier while it could have been fixed fairly cheaply. Just as the government chose to ignore intelligence reports about the "terrorists" it chose to ignore the budding mortgage mess. It is a stupid government game to control and defraud. The "terrorists" weren't a deep dark secret. Incompetence could be blamed . . . that always possible given some of the low intelligence of some of those in charge. The "mortage mess" certainly wasn't a deep dark secret either. You've got a "conservative" national publication screaming for more government oversight and you even have hearings. So what? It was just another stupid government fraud and the rich again succeed in stealing with the help of government.
So wage the idiotic war against "terrorism" and increase their strength while the government needs to print more and more money (or hopefully raise your taxes thru the roof) to play the game that only embitters the larger islamic community and destabilizes a nuclear state.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"And then if anyone comes for my weapons, they will only get the ammunition."
You'll be labelled a "terrorist." You know that favorite phrase of supposedly "conservative" Republicans. Better stock up on the food and make sure you have a safe supply of water! LOL!
I can just see a U.S. tank rolling over your home with you in it (makes no difference if your home is filled with women and children!) from the blind side. You probably won't even get to fire a couple of rounds into the ground.
In the 2 "hot" wars the government is playing around with currently it is amazing the locals are able to fight back even a little bit (usually killing more of their own people than the enemy). The advantage of modern technology is just overwhelming. The one real advantage these villagers have over the mighty U.S. government is that with any luck they can financially devastate the enemy invader---remember this was one of Bin Laden's stated goals; the U.S. government bankrupt itself by overreaction and overreaching.
Additionally, it was a plan employed by the Reagan adminstration to help bankrupt the Soviets. Sort of fitting that the same freedom fighters as President Reagan referred to them may succeed in bankrupting 2 super powers of the modern age. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Oops, I should have said soon to be President Obama. Has wonderful ring to it. President McCain sounds so harsh and grumpy by contrast. Maybe President McCaino is an improvement---just a slight name change to save people's hearing.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003" http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Back in the good old days of 1963 the top marginal rate for those earning over $400,000 was 91% (with a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 87% of statutory "taxable income.") In the good old days of 1918 the top marginal rate was 77% for those earning over a $1,000,000.
President Obama may merely return us to the good old days where people understood their income after a reasonable level belonged more to the government than themselves! :) Socialism has a long proud tradition in the U.S. as does total government corruption. Americans fight for liberty? LOL! LOL! LOL!
Truly, that concept of American fighting for individual liberty is hilarious. The typical American is eager to do whatever the government demands; it's democracy or some such crapola. :) I'm 99% certain the government will not restrict your right to wave the American flag, however, so you should be a happy camper.
Didn't President Obama say paying more taxes is patriotic? If so, he is one sharp pencil.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"Obama hates America."
Everytime that I hear that I feel tempted to waste a little of my time and vote for Obama. :) Unfortunately, he probably is telling the truth when he says he loves America.