penniless

Amazing that it takes more than a whole calendar quarter to clean up the mess made over 8 years of irresponsible fiscal policies.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_treasury_borrowing Go, Obama, go! Spend, Obama, spend! "It's the third straight quarter the government's borrowing needs have set records for those periods." 2 of the those 3 quarters were under a Republican administration. Can you link to the posts that you decried Bush for setting spending records.

good job, anyone that would dare have a personal opinion to call "Him" horrible must be automatically called three names from the handbook. He used the following: racist anticomunist antisocialist anti gay since he used 4, the warning is justified Not "Him". JR called the 100 days "horrible". That just goes to show that JR is totally out of touch with reality

80% isn't enough for them to pay? I suppose you'd like them to just go ahead and cover the whole thing. . No. I'd simply like them to pay what they owe. Like I do.

That didn't take long to start blaming other people. The article was about illegal immigrants taking money and you somehow manage to turn it into legal taxpayers' fault. "Legal taxpayers" don't cheat on their taxes. Funny how you excuse the rich for robbing the government of $300 billion while getting all upset about 1% of that amount going to illegal aliens.

Interesting semantic contortions you go through in a vain attempt to prove Billvon wrong.

Despite that, the top 10% of earners pay about half the total bill. The top 25% pay roughly 80%. So....no, that argument doesn't add up. +1 G! Those successfull people @ the top certainly don't pay their fair share of our government's expenditures. 80% is nothing! oh you mean 80%, like almost ALL of it... redistribution of wealth is certainly a democratic and captalistic notion right...? Isn't it? In related news, sometime between january 1st and april 15th every year the government gets it's boot an estimated 130% of the way up each its citizens @sses, while simultaneously flipping them the bird. No one is quite sure how this number came to exist, however the figure is unanimously agreed upon. Is disagreeing with the tax rate structure an acceptable excuse for perjury on your tax return?

Despite that, the top 10% of earners pay about half the total bill. The top 25% pay roughly 80%. So....no, that argument doesn't add up. I'm surprised that you would condone lawbreaking. The % paid by various categories is really not relevant to the issue. You and I pay more because some fat cats don't pay what they are supposed to pay.

I've never been to Saudi Arabia. I have been to several other predominantly muslim and/or arab countries. I'll stand by my statement. You should go.... be sure to take your wife with you and see how she feels about them just a few minutes after exitiing their airspace. I took my wife to an arab country (Tunisia) and they treated both of us very well. You generalized far too much on this subject. Tunisia is not THE Kingdom. I would think even his conservative wife might have an issues with how women there are really treated... I was amazed at how easily most women I met there actually made excuses for the treatment of being third class citizens.... amazing what no hope of any change will do to foster doormats. Are you withdrawing your comments about arabs in general now, and restricting yourself to the Saudi royal family?

Such ad hominems weren't useful in 2003 & are not productive now. /Marg I guess I omitted the tag. Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

Why haven't you moved to somewhere more in line with your beliefs? What keeps you in Illinois when you clearly hate it.

The current $83B he's seeking is his doing. The very procedure he frequently critisized during his campaign. As he should have, but since the war was not properly budgeted in the first place, the only way to support our troops is by supplemental appropriations. You do wish to support our troops, don't you?

Cleaning up after someone else leaves a mess is always expensive.

It beats having a White House astrologer.

Good points. It seems to be the same people who are most vocal in wanting positive voter ID check on eligibility before the right to vote can be exercised, who are against any form of eligibility check before the right to shoot a gun is exercised.

My analogy? You brought up driving the wrong way on the highway, not me. Link, because your memory is so short. You brought up licensing which doesn't exist in the firearm world You wanted to compare guns with cars - so deal with it.

I never said that you shouldn't try. I was just responding to your saying that you wouldn't have a range if you couldn't "completely eliminate" the chance of one person killing another. That wasn't me. That was pbwing.

Neither suggestion was remotely good. That, of course, is just your opinion. Others disagree.

My analogy? You brought up driving the wrong way on the highway, not me. Link, because your memory is so short.

No, no, no and no. How about you? What is amazing is that you offer no proof, hmmmmmmm. . Why should we believe what you write? Hmmmmmm.

Not quite what I said. It's one thing if someone takes themselves out, it's another if they take out others. I know what you said but if you can't stop someone from killing themselves how are ya gonna prevent someone from shooting others? Unless of course you do what Mike suggests and only allow 1 person in the range at a time. There is a point where fantasy must give way to reality. The reality is you can not stop this from happening no more than you can stop people from getting on the freeway going the wrong direction. Just because people get on the highway going the wrong way from time to time doesn't mean we stop giving driving tests and issuing drivers' licenses. The absense of a perfect solution does not imply the absence of a good solution.

I don't think it is possible for a range to "completely eliminate the chance" of a customer killing another customer. And back to the dz analogy - the same could be said for a dz. Just because you can't "completely eliminate" all negative outcomes doesn't mean you shouldn't try to eliminate a negative outcome. Throwing up your hands and claiming there's nothing to be done because perfection is not possible is just plain irresponsible.

It was a rental gun. Lots of ranges rent guns without background checks, because they are in the supposedly controlled conditions of the range. In this case, it looks to me like the range operators are at fault. Sorry, the mother's at fault not the gun range. Renting guns to nutcases is OK then? How about felons? Ah, I just knew you'd be in with your usual strawman... why don't you show us what laws concern gun ranges and rental guns? Since you consider the question a "strawman", either you don't know what a strawman argument is, or you claim he misprepresented your position and you really don't think the range should be renting to nutcases. Which is it?

(Playing devil's advocate here for a moment.) What do you mean who do they think they are fooling? Let's say North Korea really did want to put up a communications satellite, Well, if they wanted to launch a satellite the test was a huge failure. Nothing reached orbit. If they want a long range ballistic missile I'd say that test was a success. We need to re-think Strategic Defense Initiative. Waste even more taxpayer money? We're already over $10 trillion in debt.

I'm not embarrassed for believing in civil rights. Any real American has a problem with prior restraint. I believe the pertinent expression is: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” Oliver Wendell Holmes On the whole I believe a victim's right not to be shot dead by a nutter trumps the nutter's right to privacy in a gun shop.