Lucky...

Members
  • Content

    10,453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Jump Profile

  • License
    F
  • License Number
    1

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nevermid that, did no one notice the student's left shoe was untied? That's a travesty!
  2. I don't like many skydivers, sorry, just the way I feel. Too many skygods and other egotistical assholes and then there's Ash. He packed my chop and we did a hybrid 6 of us. That was the most memorable jump of all my jumps. They broke the mold after this guy was minted. I read the fatality section to learn, this time I read it to be sad and pissed. I knew he was in Hawaii, I hoped to cross paths with him again one day. Ash was a living legend in the sport but would genuinely never accept that title. Too many in this sport remind you of their status w/o being asked. Ash always wanted to help to make skydiving a better and more fun place, not to show off what he knew. This makes me love skydiving less.
  3. This is the conservative version of what they call the Obama death panels. Under Obama this is covered, under conservatism this is the death panel we get.,
  4. And I agree. I have none and we need to reduce the population by being responsible. At the same tome, it is what it is and do we need to put money before people? WHat if he had 2 kids and a crappy job w/o insurance? What if he had ins but lost it with his job? There are lots of responsible people on ACCESS, just poor. This is just one case and how will his kids grow up w/o a dad? Maybe as criminals? Disorganized, incomplete? At the same time, I'm sure teh military will use the kids in some proxy war, so we will get bang for our buck; it isn't the rich kids going to war.
  5. http://www.620ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1340949 That the benefit of having such a rancid POS governor; Arizona has some real winners. As long as we can just keep putting money before people we will be doing well as a corpo-fascist fucking nation. Just keep doing this shit and soon people will bring in uni-care as they see teh faces of death all around them. Look at the 3 pigs, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover; 5 straight terms of D's. Why does it take the obvious to do the obvious?
  6. Actaully it was a win, theefore it pissed off your heroes. Rememebr your heroes, they would arrest protestors wearing anti-GWB shirts? Yea, you party, the one of non-censorchip. Pull your head out of your ass. (A) Godwin's Law is an automatic loss. (B) They're not my heroes. Have I ever said they were? No. (prove me wrong, I dare you) I criticize morons in both big parties and in "third parties." If you could manage to stop defining everyone who disagrees with you as a fascist neo-con you might realize that I hardly fit the mold of a Republican. (C) Censorship reflects government's lack of trust in the people, negating the argument "of the people by the people for the people." I disagree with censorship and prior restraint type of laws that prohibit doing things that might lead to other crimes (censorship, prohibition, gun control, etc) (D) When is the last time a campaigning candidate for POTUS allowed disruptive protesters into one of their events? As well, you should pull your head out of your ass. Bill deleted it after I posted it; I call the lack of that knowledge, ignorance. When you show ultra-conservative leanings and refuse to post your voting record, favorite politicians or even political ideoligy then we have the right to draw out own conclusions based upon what you say. If you love Reagan's policies, you are a neo-con, as he was the true neo-con. It's not an insult by itself, just a defining term such as socialist. Oh, show me where I have. Of course you do that by chastising Clinton for perjury/obstruction (political trial acquittal) and then defending or acquiescing Libby for the same and GWB commuting him, certainly thinking he should have received a full pardon as did Cheney. Laughably, and pathetically, you can't even show me one major federal tax cut that has led to overall economic benefit, yet you clammer on as if you do even as I illustrate example after another where tax cuts are caustic. Just keep trying to draw in fans, cheerleaders while providing zero substance. Says the guy who can't address my tax cut question.
  7. This forum caters to the sponsors. They need hits to sustain interest from the sponsors, but the sponsors pay the bills. If that's not the reason for the unpredictable moderating, then explaion it because no one else has. And no, that's not a complaint, it's an observation. Isn't Sangrio out of the picture as far as ownership? The new media company calls the shot now, right? Explain then why Kennedy can tell me to pull my head out of my ass, yet when I tell him to do the same the post gets deleted. I'm just trying to understand the rules and what to expect so I can act accordingly. So far I've not been shown consistency. This is SC, I think that is the norm. Show me who acted out of line first; who pushed buttons first. Oh, was it Kennedy? Yet I'm being chastised and blamed by you. Who, Kennedy for telling me to pull my head out of my ass or me for daring to defend myself? I thought you weren't the moderator of this forum.
  8. You like the concept of tax cuts and think they benefit the economy. You and everyone who thinks like that are unable to constructively show me when, in the last 100 years, esp since FDR, when tax cuts have helped. Again, one area *may* improve, as when Reagan cut taxes and deficit spent, but then there is a backlash where another area went down the dumper. So I'm looking for an overallbetterment or a tax increase where tehre was an overall worsening. It's counter-intuitive to think raising taxes works, but the data supports that tax increases do work, whether accross the board or on the upper class. The important thing is that the upper class, the class that holds virtually all the money, pays more if they fail to reinvest for the writeoff. I think that attitude was born in the 80's under the, "Me generation." It was exacted in the 90's and failed in the 2000's under both low taxes and lkow interest that led to runaway artificial appreciation. Good points. We're happiest, as a whole, building a lot of killing machines. But to mock any system in the US is a bad idea, as we are unique in ways as they are. We can borrow some aspects and keep some individual aspects. What we do know is that taxes in the 20's% and 30's% are not good. It worked under Clinton as we had such an active economy with the Dot.com boom that the tiny tax increase multiplied exponentially. Really taxes need to be 50-60% top brkt at a minimum; find where any other has worked.
  9. No, the clones have been trying to come up with a tax cut that has led to ecomic benefit for quite a while, a few good attempts. Now that they and you cannot find one, it's down to insults.
  10. As well, you should pull your head out of your ass. You first . . . then you could see that the rest of us already have. Dark isn't it? Well, as long as you have, that's what matters.
  11. As well, you should pull your head out of your ass.
  12. Well, I have to at least offer the reciprocal, "Pull your head out of your ass, copper!!!"
  13. I like his replies and think he makes very good points unlike some posters. Sure, an ultra-conservative citing ultra conservatives as supporting evidence would be viewed as very good poiints by other ultra-conservatives. Just don't ask him to post 1 major federal tax cut that has actually helped the economy, he'll run from that. Uh, you are, obviously. I've yet to read anything, esp anything substantive from you in SC, you ought to go back to Bonfire. So what's you purpose here? Cheerleading? That's not uselful. Right, conservatives love to censor any other opinion that their own. That I do believe, you would censor me and then go to your tea bagger rally decrying the libs for revoling your freedoms. I address all who adress me, I know, a lib thing. Why do you get annoyed? It's not like you have EVER added anthing substantive, EVER. I've addressed this issue to death, the closest I have come is the 97 cap gains tax cuts from 28% to 20%. My counter is that per the CBO cap gains taxes account for 2-3% of all income tax revs, cap gains taxes were cut by < 1/3rd so at most the diff was 1% change to the fed revs. Mike and Lawrocket both brought this in, since I established that the 97 cap gains cut meant nothing to fed rev picture, they both went away on that issue. Not to mention the economy and deficit reduction were well under way with the 5 years Clinton was president before the 97 CG cut. I realize you know very little about tax policy history, but I have posted copius data on this. If you want some data, I will be glad to post it for the 1000th time. As for read it first, kid I read and interpret well, I don't post rhetoric and claims that I do have gone unsubstantiated.
  14. Cite examples. Talk about unqualified, list some. And this is mutually exclusive to homosexualioty in your world. I imagine it is. The byproduct to this self control is no gopvernment assistance. Conservatives hate that until they need it. As many RWers suck the gov tit as do libes, the former is juts in denial. All you have to do is ignore your federal right to organize and call it crime and you're in. Redefinition is a fun tool to use, only certain people then try to see it as legitimate. Riiiiiight. We all saw how clumbsy they looked throwing Michael Steele in as RNC Chair after Obama was elected. Also, these southerners were the conservatives as Dems until the 1964 Civil Rts Act, then they switched. As usual, no supporting data/evidence/amything, yet I'm disqualified.