Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2010 19:23:42 GMT -8
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/05/BAMU1E8QKR.DTLWhere does it stop? When will you Nanny State Fascists be satisfied? Aside from buggery, porn and the ingestion of hallucinogens, is there ANYTHING you and the tin pot dick-taters you and the drunks you scrape off the street vote into office don't want to control? Liberals...what a laugh! You're anything BUT liberal. You're all a bunch of small-minded sheep driven by the fear that somebody, somewhere might have more than you.
|
|
Happy Annoying Measles
Guest
|
Post by Happy Annoying Measles on Jul 8, 2010 6:36:43 GMT -8
A quote that will go down in infamy. Don't forget, the facists have taken away our "pursuit of happiness" guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution (Caesar Rodney???), and so they have also taken the "ra" out of being a liberal...
just call them, "libels" from now on...
Nice post Aztecfan!
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 8, 2010 8:04:05 GMT -8
Oh what joy it must be to be an enlightened totalitarian ..... helping the little people and all.
Das vi danya Comrade Commissar!
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 8, 2010 9:22:56 GMT -8
You guys make me laugh. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Hire A Mineworker on Jul 8, 2010 16:23:59 GMT -8
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/05/BAMU1E8QKR.DTLWhere does it stop? When will you Nanny State Fascists be satisfied? Aside from buggery, porn and the ingestion of hallucinogens, is there ANYTHING you and the tin pot dick-taters you and the drunks you scrape off the street vote into office don't want to control? Liberals...what a laugh! You're anything BUT liberal. You're all a bunch of small-minded sheep driven by the fear that somebody, somewhere might have more than you. Hee-larry-us post afan, just perfect! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jul 12, 2010 4:46:53 GMT -8
You guys make me laugh. ;D Actually, they make me cringe. These freedom lovers who so want to be able to do whatever they want and who, as a lot, are so willing to take away the freedoms that they don't want. There is nothing in this constitution that outlaws smoking pot (or for that matter, taking any illegal drugs), gays serving in the military, abortion or most of what the right wing opposes on "moral grounds". Yet they whine big time when their right to purchase suggary drinks from vending machines is infringed. Gawd forbid. On the scale of freedoms under attack, I'm thinking that there are more important ones than suggary drinks from vending machines. And yet they revel in their own sense of moral superiority. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 13, 2010 13:45:18 GMT -8
Actually, YoYo, I think it is you who are the one reveling in your own sense of moral superiority.
If Congress can make laws against sugary drinks (supposedly for health issues), why can't they legislate against homosexual sex for the same reason? Obama's nomination for the SCOTUS couldn't even bring herself to answer "NO" to a question asking if Congress could specify the food we have to eat every day.
Look, I don't give a damn about how many joints you might want to puff on, or how much "cream soda" you might want to swallow, but you ought to understand that allowing Congress the latitude they seem to be usurping these days will eventually come back to bite you.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 13, 2010 18:33:18 GMT -8
I can hardly wait for the cons to take over. Then we can have them passing laws that require cameras in everyone's bedrooms to make sure that the proper sexual practices are followed.
afan for POTUS!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 13, 2010 18:44:35 GMT -8
so you hate n*^(*^(*^ and f*^3, I'm sure Mel Gibson needs some friends now D
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 16, 2010 20:19:35 GMT -8
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/05/BAMU1E8QKR.DTLWhere does it stop? When will you Nanny State Fascists be satisfied? Aside from buggery, porn and the ingestion of hallucinogens, is there ANYTHING you and the tin pot dick-taters you and the drunks you scrape off the street vote into office don't want to control? Liberals...what a laugh! You're anything BUT liberal. You're all a bunch of small-minded sheep driven by the fear that somebody, somewhere might have more than you. afan, we liberals love it when you get flustered. ;D There is no greater fear on earth than that experienced by a Conservative who might have to part with a dollar or two for the common good. It is just a shame that you have to share space in this wonderful country with the less fortunate. Heck, they probably aren't real Americans anyway. I say forget the pretense! To debtors prison for everyone who has the bald faced temerity to go on unemployment! ! It is a shame that some the rest of us fail to meet your lofty standards. Truth be known, if you aren't rich, you aren't really an American!  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 17, 2010 5:51:49 GMT -8
Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me how destroying one persons wealth has benefited anyone? How does eating the seed corn do any good?
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 17, 2010 6:08:44 GMT -8
Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me how destroying one persons wealth has benefited anyone? How does eating the seed corn do any good? Win, the point is not to destroy anyone's wealth. I personally have no problem with rich people, nor do I have a problem with people of ability rising economically. It is just that this country has always done better economically when the gap between the rich and poor is less extreme. That gap has been rising for many years. When that gap becomes too large, the trouble begins. Take a look at the country 20 miles south of you. There is nothing wrong with people of means paying their fair share. Since they benefit more from the infrastructure of our country than the less well off. I submit, Win, that our infrastructure bestows a greater benefit on the well off than unemployment insurance, assistance with health care, welfare and all of the other social programs. If that were not true, their income would not be growing relative to the majority of citizens whose incomes have actually gone down. Do you remember when two spouses did not have to work? The rich do not get richer than the less well off due to talent. (without an estate tax-this year-that is certainly true) The infrastructure of this country benefits them greatly. The problem is that the benefit the well off get is not as easy to see or criticize as an unemployment check. Make no mistake Win, the benefit is there.
That the well off have to pay taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive, is just common sense. Why shouldn't they pay for what they get? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 17, 2010 10:59:32 GMT -8
Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me how destroying one persons wealth has benefited anyone? How does eating the seed corn do any good? Win, the point is not to destroy anyone's wealth. I personally have no problem with rich people, nor do I have a problem with people of ability rising economically. It is just that this country has always done better economically when the gap between the rich and poor is less extreme. That gap has been rising for many years. When that gap becomes too large, the trouble begins. Take a look at the country 20 miles south of you. There is nothing wrong with people of means paying their fair share. Since they benefit more from the infrastructure of our country than the less well off. I submit, Win, that our infrastructure bestows a greater benefit on the well off than unemployment insurance, assistance with health care, welfare and all of the other social programs. If that were not true, their income would not be growing relative to the majority of citizens whose incomes have actually gone down. Do you remember when two spouses did not have to work? The rich do not get richer than the less well off due to talent. (without an estate tax-this year-that is certainly true) The infrastructure of this country benefits them greatly. The problem is that the benefit the well off get is not as easy to see or criticize as an unemployment check. Make no mistake Win, the benefit is there.
That the well off have to pay taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive, is just common sense. Why shouldn't they pay for what they get? You did not answer the question, but what you did say is well thought out and well presented. I do not agree for the most part, but what you say is at least sensible. It ignors the ease with which we can arrange our affairs to avoid those estate and inheritance taxes using trusts and foundations and for that reason nobody that wants to pass things along will have any trouble. Now will someone answer the basic question of how can destroying wealth benefit anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 17, 2010 11:26:11 GMT -8
Win, the point is not to destroy anyone's wealth. I personally have no problem with rich people, nor do I have a problem with people of ability rising economically. It is just that this country has always done better economically when the gap between the rich and poor is less extreme. That gap has been rising for many years. When that gap becomes too large, the trouble begins. Take a look at the country 20 miles south of you. There is nothing wrong with people of means paying their fair share. Since they benefit more from the infrastructure of our country than the less well off. I submit, Win, that our infrastructure bestows a greater benefit on the well off than unemployment insurance, assistance with health care, welfare and all of the other social programs. If that were not true, their income would not be growing relative to the majority of citizens whose incomes have actually gone down. Do you remember when two spouses did not have to work? The rich do not get richer than the less well off due to talent. (without an estate tax-this year-that is certainly true) The infrastructure of this country benefits them greatly. The problem is that the benefit the well off get is not as easy to see or criticize as an unemployment check. Make no mistake Win, the benefit is there.
That the well off have to pay taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive, is just common sense. Why shouldn't they pay for what they get? You did not answer the question, but what you did say is well thought out and well presented. I do not agree for the most part, but what you say is at least sensible. It ignors the ease with which we can arrange our affairs to avoid those estate and inheritance taxes using trusts and foundations and for that reason nobody that wants to pass things along will have any trouble. Now will someone answer the basic question of how can destroying wealth benefit anyone? There can be no answer to a question that does not exist. Creating a bit more balance between who has and who does not have, creates more wealth not less. You cannot honestly say that wealth was destroyed between the end of world war two and 1970 when there was more equality than now. that period was pretty good for this country. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 17, 2010 11:35:51 GMT -8
You did not answer the question, but what you did say is well thought out and well presented. I do not agree for the most part, but what you say is at least sensible. It ignors the ease with which we can arrange our affairs to avoid those estate and inheritance taxes using trusts and foundations and for that reason nobody that wants to pass things along will have any trouble. Now will someone answer the basic question of how can destroying wealth benefit anyone? There can be no answer to a question that does not exist. Creating a bit more balance between who has and who does not have, creates more wealth not less. You cannot honestly say that wealth was destroyed between the end of world war two and 1970 when there was more equality than now. that period was pretty good for this country. Now that is just an opinion and it might be right or might not. It is not the question. |
|
