|
02 Feb 05 - 09:14 PM (#1397319) Subject: BS: State of the Union Address... From: Bobert My fellow Americans, I was going to come to with you with good nes but I looked in the good new file and athere ain't none to to quote the phophets, the state of the union, ahhhhh, purdy much sucks... Yeah, the 2004 Election was a real bummer since my dad rold me that I couldn't use his Supreme Court a 2nd time. Like waht's that all about? So I had to contract and privatize the elcetion to Diebold. That wasn't cheap but what are you gonna do? Okay, I'm sure you are all interested in Iraq... Irag, Iraq, Ieaq... Is that all you folks can think about. Okay, I shouldn't have listened to Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz. They both got beedie eyes and I should have known better but, hey, we're there so I reckon this democracy stuff might just work on 'um... Now fir the bad news. Hey, I didn't want to do it but Dick is making me do it but this Social Security thing is one heck of a mess. Yeah, I know there ain't nothin' wrong with it but Dick won't leave it alone. You wanta spend a say a week with him? Didn't think so. So I just said, "Okay, Dick, I'll do it! Just leave me alone so I can kick back with a few pretzels, will ya". Yep, that's what I said. Heck, I don't know nuthin' about this stuff anyway. If they wanted a friggin' accountant that knows this stuff then my daddy should have gotten a danged CPA to have this job. What else? Okay, lets get back to that day when I was 'sposed to have landed the airplane on that aircraft carrier. Well, I didn't really actually land it myself but I was in the plane. All I can remember before the landing was barfing into the barf bag in the back seat. I told Lura that I didn't like scrambled egges it I was gonna have to be in a plane that day but I guess he didn't hear me. Well, that's about all I can remember. Oh yeah, one more thing. Hey, since I'z kinda kickin' back here tonight? These church folks are starting to really piss me off. Heck, I never believed none of that stuff but just went along because daddy said I had to but they are really gettin on my nerves... Well, that's about the state of the unioe, Purdy messed up, ain't it. But, I swear that Dick and Donnie made me do it. I swear and... God bless America. |
|
02 Feb 05 - 09:21 PM (#1397326) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Kaleea Dere Bobert, Yew jist 'bout sed it all, buddy! 'Cept fer mebbee thet thar part 'bout dubblepew seekrutlee uzin' his new soshul seecuritee plan as a new weppon uv mass deestrukshun. But, thet's OK, see, cuz ain't nobodee spose t' know 'bout it yet. Yeppers, it's kindee like yew mite say a seekrut weppon uv mass deestrukshun. |
|
02 Feb 05 - 09:21 PM (#1397327) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: wysiwyg Thank you, Bobert! ~S~ |
|
02 Feb 05 - 09:23 PM (#1397329) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Once Famous And Bobert, what do you plan to do to close the borders to drug dealers and terrorists? |
|
02 Feb 05 - 09:25 PM (#1397332) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: wysiwyg An', uh, iz it MISTER Bobert now? ~S~ |
|
02 Feb 05 - 09:32 PM (#1397338) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Teresa I say, 'long as we're gonna have a dictatorship in the U.S. it should be a benign one. Hail, King Bobert. ;) Teresa |
|
02 Feb 05 - 09:32 PM (#1397339) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Kaleea Thet thar would be Mister Prezident Bobert! |
|
02 Feb 05 - 09:37 PM (#1397346) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Sorcha ROF, but it's sad that it's true. |
|
02 Feb 05 - 10:00 PM (#1397367) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Peace When elected (or declared), Bobert will vacation at the Spa Tula Resort. |
|
02 Feb 05 - 10:33 PM (#1397387) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Teresa No need to be flippant. ;) :) And all of us pun-dits will put the right spin on things, just to keep the record straight. Whoa, I better get outa here. :) Teresa |
|
02 Feb 05 - 10:53 PM (#1397399) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert Well gol danged. (Spit)... Sho is nice to know that the stuff is gonna get spun right. Heck, you don't spin 'um out the wayz they is 'sposed to got spun then all heck cuts loose.... You all fix what ever needs fixin'... I'm gonna retire now with a bag of pretzels so don't bug me... Good night |
|
02 Feb 05 - 10:56 PM (#1397401) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Amos On account things are quite scrambled enough; but let me just addthat COmmander-in-Chief Bobert will need to finish his speech quickly as a phalanx of rabid right-wing neoconservatives are marching on his Capitol several thousand strong. They are carrying signs which say things like "End Times, Shmend Times, Bring 'Em On" and "We're Tough Enough for the Rapture" on them. The National Guard has been placed on red alert. A |
|
02 Feb 05 - 10:57 PM (#1397403) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Teresa a phal-what? |
|
02 Feb 05 - 11:06 PM (#1397410) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Amos Phalanx: a battle-line, or array. Also: any closely ranked crowd of people www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn a body of troops in close array www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn Regards, A |
|
02 Feb 05 - 11:17 PM (#1397421) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Peace http://www.redferns.com/pictures/100_orig/JSU045_CROWDS_P.JPG |
|
02 Feb 05 - 11:20 PM (#1397423) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Teresa I got took too seriously again. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha Teresa |
|
02 Feb 05 - 11:49 PM (#1397443) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert Well, gool danged... Man can't hang back wiyth a pretzel 'er two without some sunabeech knockin' on the front door.... Well, tell them "Young Rebublicans" to get a life... Man, they are way over the edge and tell ya what, they give me the willies... Know what I mean... Now bug off... P (as in Prez..) B (as in the usaul idiot, Bobert_ PB, PB, PB??? Does have a ring to it, don't it??? But sounds like a big oil company, too, so maybe DB,as in "Dictator Bobert??? Democracy is such a pain in the butt... And lots of writtin' big checks with lots of zeros. I know they are tryin' to confuse me with 'um but... Heck, no but about it... they have... Opps, sorry, gotta go. Gotta tuck the 1st Lady in, plus I gota few cold pretzels that need attendin' to... Good night fir the night, this time... PB~~~~~~~ |
|
03 Feb 05 - 12:11 AM (#1397464) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert Yo, Martin... Sorry, pal, in my hast to make it to the ptetzel romm(wink, wink...) I missed yer question... As fir the bnorders? I ain't like been briefed on this so don't hold me to this but, hay, I'll go out on a limb here.... NUKE 'UM... Yep, nike every border in the world.... But now that's just what I would do... Let me get back to ya when the Heritage Council gives me an answer that can be printed... Now, for the last time. It's way past pretzel hour... PB~~~ |
|
03 Feb 05 - 08:06 AM (#1397717) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: susu ...and in the mean time while Bobert's "supposed throngs of poor people huddled by a bic lighter for a little warmth" are still on the street eating rats and rotten lettuce while waiting in line to sell their food stamps for crack rocks......he's in the warmth of his house beating on a keyboard. Sounds just a wee bit hypocritical to me. |
|
03 Feb 05 - 08:10 AM (#1397720) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: susu by the way.....the above was written by me (Susu's Hubby)......Goodnight Mr. President Bobert......hope you have a good night's sleep while the poor stayed up all night wondering where the next meal was coming from. (I wish people would stay consistent on their thought's instead of just playing to the crowd. At least have a FEW convictions.) |
|
03 Feb 05 - 08:42 AM (#1397763) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert Ahhhh, since when have you become an advocate for the poor, hubby? I'll match my record of community service with yers any day of the week. BTW, hub, you ready to take me up on my offer to visit some folks I know down in Mississippi? I'll be down there in late May and can pick you up at the airport... Bobert |
|
03 Feb 05 - 10:04 AM (#1397854) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: susu well according to you, We should all give half of our paychecks to your so called poor and needy. This isn't a contest to see who give the most. It's a struggle to come up with ideas to get the people out of the predicament that they find theirselves in. You know the adage......Give a man a fish and feed him for a day....teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime? Let's teach the people to feed and clothe themselves instead of just giving handout after handout after handout. That does nothing but breed laziness and the expection of entitlements that are meant to HELP, not to provide a way of life. I promise it'll be cheaper for You and me. If you want to give half of your paycheck to them then fine....it's a free country. Go right ahead. Let me decide who gets my money...because like I said before....I think I can find people who truly need it and help them a lot more than the Gov't making that decision for me and helping people who are just expecting a free handout. |
|
03 Feb 05 - 10:35 AM (#1397892) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Amos Susu, or whoever: If you had been paying attention you wouldhave read that one of the people Bobert is talking abut, for example, gets up at 4:30 in the morning to make lunches for her kids and catch a bus to go clean houses for a living. Who is this straw man you're talking about who is waiting for free handouts? Talk about uninformed condescension. A |
|
03 Feb 05 - 11:01 AM (#1397924) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Susu's Hubby Amos.....that's not who I'm talking about.....does everything have to be explained out to you people? The people I'm talking about are the people that are giving the system a bad name. It's these people that put the lady in Mississippi in a difficult position as far as the benefits are concerned. And on that....Why can't her church step up and help her, why can't her community step up and take some responsibility and help her. Why does it take the whole country to raise a family when Hillary stated that it only takes a community to raise a child. Let's have a little consistency here in your statements. Or do you only live by your convictions when they're suitable to your argument? |
|
03 Feb 05 - 11:15 AM (#1397932) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Peace Susu, you said "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day....teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime?" What crap. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat all day drinking beer. Get a grip. |
|
03 Feb 05 - 11:19 AM (#1397938) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Amos Hunny: I don't know who "You people" is, but I'd like to point out that you're foaming at the mouth again. A |
|
03 Feb 05 - 11:22 AM (#1397942) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Peace Hi, Amos. Howzit, man? |
|
03 Feb 05 - 11:35 AM (#1397956) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Amos 'S awright, dude...waiting for my welfare check, those bastards are so lazy.... A |
|
03 Feb 05 - 01:48 PM (#1398141) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Wolfgang If you had been paying attention you wouldhave read that one of the people Bobert is talking abut, for example, gets up at 4:30 in the morning to make lunches for her kids and catch a bus to go clean houses for a living. (Amos) I'm curious. Where? Wolfgang |
|
03 Feb 05 - 01:52 PM (#1398148) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Amos My apologies to both Wolfgang and Susu Hubby for the error -- the reference to particular low-income individuals by Bobert occurred in another thread, not this one. A |
|
03 Feb 05 - 02:13 PM (#1398167) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Susu's Hubby I saw the other thread too. So I knew what you were referring to. Not a problem! (See....I really am a nice guy!);-) |
|
03 Feb 05 - 02:38 PM (#1398189) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: GUEST,observer Martin Gibson IT says: "And Bobert, what do you plan to do to close the borders to drug dealers and terrorists?" Gee, Martin Gibson, you ought to know the answer to that. The poor ones will be held in a prison somewhere so the Repub's can brag about what they have done, and the rich ones will contribute to the repub's larders and go back for more drugs and more weapons. Martin, you twit! |
|
03 Feb 05 - 06:25 PM (#1398280) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Tannywheeler Awrite, Bobert. I sometimes feel "the state of the union" sucks, too. Yet I reflect on the myriad of folks who plug away, hour after hour, doing stuff that teaches us (by living example) to be healthier, kinder, truer -- and a corner of my heart rejoices and dares to hope that, maybe, "things" are getting better.... Tw |
|
03 Feb 05 - 09:04 PM (#1398481) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert In some ways things are getting better, Tw, but because of the neocon hyjacking of the United Sates government but because the world is full of incredible and opimistic people who care for their fellow man. I'd like to think of myself as one of those people. Yeah, it would be easy to bee so bitter that I'd just quit but I don't. I am still quite involved in my communtiy and believe in the basic goodness of man. And this , in spite of a life long struggle with causes with which I identify and causes that I have not been a spectator... I don't know "hubby" but from what he has said I would probably find him to be very much in the "angry white man/complainer/spectator" category. Hey, someone has to do it?... He like to invent stories about what I think and what I don't think. Fine, that is his constitutional right. But I'm probably one of th4e more open folks here so if you want to know what I think, what I've done or what I'm doing then, hey, I'll tell ya.... On the other side of the coin you have angry-white-hubby who likes to preach but won't atke any questions after the sermon. Well, preachin' is one thing. A monkey can do it. Teachin' is quite another beast. This is where you enter into dialogue (which hubby refuses to do)... I'd guess that the ol' hub-ster can't get too far beyond the bumper sticker cliche's.... "Tax and spend", grrrrrrr.... "Liberals"....grrrrrrr "When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns".... grrrrrr.... Yep, ask them a couple questions and they are like the deer in the headlights.... Purdy much the way the "Brownshirts" were in Germany in the late 30's... Maybe hubby should punch into his Google thing "brownshirts" and read a little about folks who were very much like him... Bobert |
|
03 Feb 05 - 10:05 PM (#1398518) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Little Hawk One other solution to the "drug dealers and terrorists" crossing the borders: Eliminate the borders! This can be achieved by the USA conquering and annexing all parts of the World that might possibly harbour terrorists now or in the future. It won't be easy. It will require sacrifice. It will require taking losses. It may take generations before final victory is ours. But, to quote my hero, Richard Nixon, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going!" I have faith that this administration has the will to carry out such a bold policy in the defence of liberty and freedom. You betcha! Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran, next week Syria, the week after that, Venezuela, next month, France and Canada, and ultimately...the World!!! |
|
03 Feb 05 - 10:20 PM (#1398532) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: susu "Maybe hubby should punch into his Google thing "brownshirts" and read a little about folks who were very much like him..." Just as long as you punch in socialist and read about you and your army of conformists. In Much Love, Hubby (aka)Angry, white, american, heterosexual, freedom loving, tobacco using male who just happens to think that spotted owl tastes just like chicken. |
|
03 Feb 05 - 10:33 PM (#1398542) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Little Hawk Comin' back atcha, pal, from a peaceful, white, Canadian, heterosexual, freedom loving, nonsmoking male who eats chicken, beef, and pork, but has never tried owl. Take off, eh! :-) "Socialist" is only a bad word in the USA..."a country which, unlike most countries, went straight from infancy to senility without attaining adulthood in between" according to Clemenceau (a French diplomat). I'm proud and happy to be basically a socialist who gets along fine with capitalism too. The two are not mutually exclusive, you know. |
|
03 Feb 05 - 10:36 PM (#1398545) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert You wouldn't know freedom if it knocked on yer door, hub-ster. You, not me, is the "conformist", but in all CAPS... BTW, how is the coolaid? B~ |
|
04 Feb 05 - 08:37 AM (#1398844) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Susu's Hubby Bobert...... As I have told you before, I would be more than happy to answer your questions but only if you corrected the premise of said questions. The questions you ask have NOTHING to do with what we are discussing and most of them are slanted towards your leftist point of view. These are thoughts that I have in my head and the way that I personally feel. I'll answer your questions.....just correct the premise in which they are asked. If you wanted to actually know the truth to these questions, then you would have asked them the right way to begin with. I think that you are the one trying to put forth your liberal agenda since your buddies in congress are so inept in doing the same. |
|
04 Feb 05 - 09:27 AM (#1398889) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert Tell ya what, hubby... That's wxactly what all you Bushites are doling. You want to narrowly define the discussion. It not us folkls on the other side. I gave you 15 questions. You answered 3 od them and arbitrailly decided that the other 12 were not relavent to the discussion. That's not the way to get stuff on the table. It evasiveness on your part... Tell ya what, if you wanta go back and answer the questions, I'll be more than happy to answer any list of questions that you might have for me. That's the way things are discussed. But you won't do that 'cause you, like all Bushites, can talk the talk but won't walk the walk... No, rather than entering into a discussion you just wanta preach yer sermon and tell out side that our ideas and observations aren't relevent to the discussion... Then, when your cornered on that one, you strike back persoanlly on another thread suggesating that I don't care about people living in poverty because I don't take a danged blanket down and sleep on the streets with homeless people??? Like that is about the unenlightened thing I've read here in a long time. That's like telling a cancer researcher to inject himself with cancer cells. You make Martin look like a flaming liberal, hub-ster.... Bobert |
|
04 Feb 05 - 12:00 PM (#1399003) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Little Hawk Reality is defined by perception. If you want to understand reality better, you must examine your own perceptions. If you want to understand someone else's reality better, you must examine his perceptions. What Mr Bush perceives as "liberation" is perceived by many people as an "invasion" or "takeover". That sort of thing has been happening for thousands of years. |
|
04 Feb 05 - 04:12 PM (#1399314) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Susu's Hubby 1.) How about the guy who invests in the next Enron? He needs to pick up what's left and start over. That's the beauty of the system. You can always start over. To not reinvest your money if your choices didn't work out for you (no matter the reason) is akin to not ever getting back on your bicycle after you fall off for the first time. Now if you are an older person, common sense should tell you, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." Even though Enron may have been a high price stock at one point, it doesn't change the fact that it was considered "volatile" or a high risk stock. That's the gamble you take whenever you play the stock market. Each should build his or her own portfolio according to their own personalities. If you're young (18-40) then you have the time to play the higher risk options because the rates of return have historically been between 11-15% over the past twenty to thirty years. If middle age (41-55) then you would want to get a good balance between stocks/bonds with an average rate of return of 8-10%. If you're nearing retirement, (55+) then you would be more interested in preserving what you've already saved, therefore, staying close to the gov't securities and bonds with an average rate of return of 4-7%. That's a whole lot better than the 1.5-3% that you'll get just depending on social security. Besides, if you die while on SS then your beneficiary only gets a $250 death benefit. If you have invested part of it, then upon your death, your beneficiary will get the BALANCE of what's left in your account. 2.) Now ya gonna pay to the transition costs? Transition costs for what? If you're referring to the SS system switching from the way that it is to the way that the pres. is talking about then that's easy. As he said in the state of the union (HIS state of the union), If you are 55+, then your benefits won't change. Only those younger than 55 will be affected by this. There is still money in the system to keep the system going well into the next decade. Let's reroute SOME of that money to get the system switched over. It shouldn't be more than a couple of billion dollars to get it done. Just pocket change in today's federal budget. 3.) Have you looked into the number of eledery folks who died in poverty before S.S and compared it to the number of folks after S.S.? This question does nothing but state your ignorance. You are suggesting that Bush wants to do away with social security. That's not the idea. We need to save what's already there and make it better for everybody else but not at the expense of everybody else. But to answer your question…when social security was established then the poverty rate of the elderly came down and still continues to come down. But let's be fair with this. Since the inception of social security, more investment options have presented themselves. More jobs have been created and higher wages have been paid. More elderly people have had a chance to start saving in other ways earlier in their working careers that probably your parents did. So more and more of the elderly are not just depending on social security alone. So the statistic that you are referring to is not just a two way street. 4.) Do you work on Wall Street? No, but does that disqualify me from having an informed decision? I don't know what your job is but let's say you're a machinist for an aircraft manufacturer. Just because you're not a biologist, does that disqualify you from fishing because you may not know what the fish like to eat? National Sales Tax: 1.) Would you be willing to exempt food, clothing, medical expenses, new autos under $15,000, and housing under $100,000? Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after income tax and after payroll tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs. Finally, exempting one product or service, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send their lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped. 2. Do you understand what "regressive tax" means? If so, please explain what it means? Just for the sake of giving you an answer…..a regressive tax is a tax that is distributed to everybody on a solid percentage basis regardless of income. Therefore, the tax would be disproportionate to those who earn less. But that argument does not apply to this concept. If there were to be a rebate based on family size and not income, then each family, regardless of income, would get back the same amount of money based on the size of their family. Now for a poor family of 6, the amount they would get back would be significantly larger percentage wise (if comparing their income) than it would for a rich family of 6. This blows your regressive tax argument right out the window. Middle East: 1.) Do you think it is okay to invade countries for no apparent reason other than controling their resources? No I do not. But it seems, to you, to have been the only reason for the US going into Iraq. If you would read my original post then you will see that I have already addressed that issue. But for those that are reading this (if there's anybody left) then I will explain again. What Saddam did in 1991 was to invade a country to control its resources. What the soviets did from the 40's to the 80's was to invade countries to control their resources. What we did two years ago was to invade a country to dispose of a ruthless individual who was raping, torturing, gassing, and killing his own countrymen. His actions in the region were having global implications because of the instability that it was causing among the other oil producing countries in the region. There have now been successful elections and Iraq is on it's way to becoming a sovereign country once again. We have helped them rebuild their infrastructure and started them down the road to recovery from many decades underneath the thumb of Saddam who was hell bent on destroying everything and everybody that did not support his will and command. We have even started to announce the pullout of some of our troops. If for nothing else, our presence in the region has done two things: 1. Getting rid of Saddam (and) 2. Keeping the terrorists in that region to fight our troops instead of us having to fight them on our city streets. 2.) How many mpg does you car get? It's a truck and it gets 18 in the city and 22 on the highway. What does this have to do with anything? You might have well as asked me how far can I spit. Even if I had a car that gets 75 mpg…I still don't want to pay $6 for a gallon of gas. 3.) Do you believe that the oil industry should write out national "energy policy"? No and it's not happening now and it will never happen. In the state of the union, the Pres. stated the continued research and development of alternative fuel sources. But until the alternative fuel sources can give us the same options and cheap costs that all petroleum based fuel can then we will have to depend on petroleum in order from keeping the current high costs of recently developed alternative fuel systems from depressing the economy. 4.) Do you really think that Iraq is more stable now than before the invasion? If so, please explain. Please see the response to question 1 under your Middle East heading. 5.) Would you support a Department of Peace? If not, why? No. More government is not going to help bring peace in the world. We used to have a department of War but not anymore. Why would we need a Dept. of Peace? What does this have to do with anything? 6.) Have you ever been in a fire fight? No. But do I have to be in order to appreciate what our soldiers are going through in order for me to state my opinion without fear of being persecuted? If that is the case then are you saying that only those in the military or have been in the military can be the only ones who ever speak out against anything? You're being a tad bit narrow minded. 7.) Are you aware of the number of woman, old folks and children who have been killed by our military in Iraq? I don't know the exact number but I know that there have been numerous civilian casualties. As I have said before, it's sad when innocent people die in war. But that's what war does….it kills people but it also saves countless lives that would have been lost if nothing had been done at all. 8.) is not having to pay $6.00 a gallon worth the life of even one child? if so, please explain? As you state it then no. But correct your premise for the question and we'll discuss. In theory, there are no black and white issues but in real life there are many shades of gray. 9.) Are you a man of Faith? If so, please explain how killing people who are not a threat to you is justified in your relgion. I am a man of great faith. I don't believe in killing people who are not a threat to me. I guess this is where you and part once again. I have understood and seen the threat by the people that we are fighting. You refuse to see the threat because you don't agree fundamentally with the people who are conducting the fight. 10.) Can you identify the nationalities of the hyjackers responbile for 9/11. If I'm not mistaken, the majority of them were Saudi Arabians. What again does this have to do with anything? There are members of Al Qaeda from all over the world. It doesn't matter what country they're from….they hate us all the same. 11.) Does it bother you that many former Nazis were taken into the Republican Party after WW 2? If not, explain. I have seen the web sites and read the stories of all of the conspiracy theorists on both side of the argument. I have no opinion on this question. How does something that maybe/maybe not have happened at the end of WW II have to do with what were dealing with today. How does this apply to what we are talking about? 12.) Can you tell us what you know about the links between thew Bush and bin Ladens families? I know that it's been reported that the Bush's and Bin Laden's have had business deals together. But what does this have to do with the ideas of what I have talked about so far? Is it a stretch to believe that they may have been in some deals together? No, after all, the Bin Laden's were and still are a very prominent oil family. Bush's family was in the oil business. The Bin Laden's have a black sheep in their family who just happens to be a mass murderer and terrorist. The Bush's have members in their family that I'm sure they would like the world to not know about. But what does this have to do with anything? Are you just like all of the other conspiracy theorists that are trying to tie somebody that you don't like because of his policies to something that is so out of the ordinary that you would base your beliefs upon it? Even Jesus said that the foolish man builds his house upon the sand. You may want to start looking for another foundation. |
|
04 Feb 05 - 04:14 PM (#1399317) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Susu's Hubby so here's to your "deer in the headlights look".....now can we have a discussion on why your wrong and I'm right? ;-) |
|
04 Feb 05 - 04:20 PM (#1399330) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Little Hawk "You're right from your side, I'm right from mine" - Bob Dylan I never met a person yet who didn't believe in liberty, freedom, truth, and justice. At least, not one who would bother to spend 15 minutes composing a post on Mudcat, anyway. :-) |
|
04 Feb 05 - 05:52 PM (#1399417) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Susu's Hubby It was only ten minutes.....I got tired of Bobert hiding behind his questions. But my fingertips sure are sore! |
|
04 Feb 05 - 06:01 PM (#1399432) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: GUEST If I'm not mistaken, the majority of them were Saudi Arabians. What again does this have to do with anything? America is attacked by Saudi Arabians. So Bush, 1. gets all his Saidi mates outta the country. 2. starts a war in Iraq. huh? |
|
04 Feb 05 - 08:01 PM (#1399556) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: GUEST Wait a minute. Did I say Iraq? I meant to say Afghanistan. Oh, wait. Did I say Saudi Arabia? I meant to say several Saudi expatriates. Oh, screw it. Just ignore me. |
|
04 Feb 05 - 08:03 PM (#1399558) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Peace Maps 101. How to locate north. |
|
04 Feb 05 - 09:06 PM (#1399596) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Ebbie A couple of questions: 1) Ultimately, what would be the benefit in someone taking 2/3rds of his/her money nominally earmarked for Social Security and putting it into a 'personal' retirement account? Don't we already have the 401(k) and the various kinds of IRAs? 2) There are people out there who will/would take advantage of the voluntary nature of the Personal Account and just not put it in, giving him or herself more money in the pocket. What happens at the end of the road when this person finds itself up the creek without funds? |
|
04 Feb 05 - 09:44 PM (#1399617) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Susu's Hubby Hello Ebbie "1) Ultimately, what would be the benefit in someone taking 2/3rds of his/her money nominally earmarked for Social Security and putting it into a 'personal' retirement account? Don't we already have the 401(k) and the various kinds of IRAs?" 1. The talk of the plan is nowhere near 2/3 of what's being paid in. The talk is only setting aside anywhere between 4-10% of what's being paid in but the important part is that now they have a sense of control over their own money by looking at what the best investments are available to them. The one thing that I don't like about the plan is that the Gov't will only allow us to put the money into preselected funds. But that's really no different than what we have with our retirement funds through work. Most plans have contracts with certain companies and only let you invest in the security vehicles of which that particular company has control of. This will also allow people that work for small businesses who have no access to a 401(k) or not enough disposable income to continuously contribute to an IRA to actually see first hand how compounding interest can and will work for them. "2) There are people out there who will/would take advantage of the voluntary nature of the Personal Account and just not put it in, giving him or herself more money in the pocket. What happens at the end of the road when this person finds itself up the creek without funds?" 2. Do not give that person this particular choice. We, right now, have no choice in how much comes out of our checks for social security. We have no choice on where the money goes or to whom it goes to. All of those decisions are made for us and all of the time without taking into account how we feel about it. So in order for us not to be saddled with the responsibility of having to care for the grasshopper that didn't prepare for the winter, that particular portion of his/her social security contribution would automatically go into a government backed money market account. They would still see a greater rate of return than that of the social security "fund". But the best part is that they would be preparing for their retirement and not having to mooch off of the rest of us who took the time to research and plan for our golden years. But if they did ever decide to take control of their own lives and practice a little personal responsibility then they would have the freedom to move those funds around into something that would give them a greater return than what the gov't currently returns on their own securities. Hope this helps! |
|
04 Feb 05 - 10:42 PM (#1399662) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert Dear hubby, Well, first of all, I'd like to thank you for at least making an effort to answer the questions. I did notice a number of them than contained "I don't know why this has anything to do with..." but hey, that's probabbly splittin' hairs... But maybe not... I've just got home from playin' a two hour gig, have another tomorrow, an Azalea Society meeting on Sunday 70 miles from here and then my harp player (harmonica) and his girl fiend are coming over for a Super Bowl Party but will respond to your answers on Monday... But, and you can take this to the bank, I don't hide. Ask anyone 'round this joint. Thay'll tell ya. This ol' hillbilly don't hide from no body... You included... Yeah, come Monday, you'll have yer rebuttal.. But just fir starters... I can see you don't understand the transition costs... No? Yes? Since there is no lock box on S.S. the gov't spends it as it comes in on other things. So the current payers are sending in the money that the current payees are recieving. Take, oh, 30% of those funds out of the pay-in part of the deal and it means that the US will have to either borrow to meet current payees responsibilities or write bad checks... Right or wrong? As for the Nazi's in the Republican party, this is well beyond conspiracy theory. If you were aware of a book which documents this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt would you read it? Well, I'm a tad wiped out... 2 hour sets ain't as easy as they used to be... Later.. Bobert |
|
05 Feb 05 - 12:08 AM (#1399724) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Ebbie Would love to have been there, Bobert! |
|
05 Feb 05 - 03:48 PM (#1400047) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Susu's Hubby Oh joy, joy! There's nothing like a little liberal propaganda to cloud common sense. |
|
05 Feb 05 - 06:30 PM (#1400176) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: GUEST,Frank One way to stop drug dealing is to take a hard look at Afghanistan which produces poppies enough to sell 60-80% of heroin-based products to the rest of the world. So much for mission accomplished in Afghanistan. You'd think that this Administration would be censuring the drug lords that run that country. Did anyone ever think about what's in the mind of a young teenager from Iraq or Palestine to strap explosives on his back and wipe out himself and others? Can anyone actually dismiss this as sheer madness without looking at what really causes this extreme behavior? Where did this hatred come from? And why? Frank |
|
05 Feb 05 - 07:35 PM (#1400236) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T a corner of my heart rejoices and dares to hope that, maybe, "things" are getting better.... Tw Er.........Nope! DT |
|
05 Feb 05 - 07:50 PM (#1400242) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert Okay, hubster, this is probably a good place to stop you... Will you eleaborate on the "propaganda" remark. I made one staement whish is true and asked you a simple qustion about ttansitions costs??? I don't get yer response... Perhaps you'd like to get back into that discussion mode again... Oh, I thought you were serious... sniff... but the "proganda" remark might get you some time at the Betty Ford Clinic... So rather than go back to your other responses, hey, we can stop right here and discuss these two issues fir a while. You pick... 1. Former Nazis who were welcomed into the Republican Party. or 2. Transition costs... or perhaps both, hub... Bobert |
|
05 Feb 05 - 08:56 PM (#1400287) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: GUEST Is that called answering a question with two questions? |
|
05 Feb 05 - 09:12 PM (#1400300) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Little Hawk If so, it's a worthy debating technique, engaged in by all presidential candidates. :-) |
|
05 Feb 05 - 10:10 PM (#1400339) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert LOL.... I'm beginning to think that LH is not only susu but susus's hubby.... Only LH would be smart enuff 'round this joint to argue as patheticly as susususususu's hubby... Yer caught, pal. So ya might as well give it up.... maybe Bobert 'er maybe Bobert's hubby??? Nevermind |
|
05 Feb 05 - 11:39 PM (#1400407) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Little Hawk Oh, so you think it's me tryin' to make the Right look bad, eh, Bobert? Well, it's not. Nope, I am too busy making fun of idiots from North Ontario for that. Besides, the Right are good enough at it themselves, eh? They don't need my help. |
|
06 Feb 05 - 09:32 AM (#1400600) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert Is that yer final answer, LH? |
|
06 Feb 05 - 09:47 AM (#1400613) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Little Hawk Don't tempt me, Bobert... :-) |
|
06 Feb 05 - 05:44 PM (#1401045) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Susu's Hubby Oh give me a friggen break....... 1. I list my ideas and directions on where I'd like to see the country go. 2. I get mauled by Bobert and his sympathetic conformists on answering questions. 3. I get told that I'm "afraid" of answering a few questions that have absolutely nothing to do with any of the ideas mentioned in the first place. 4. I get accused of trying to STEER the conversation into topics that I "just love to preach about". 5. Upon answering so said "questions", I am now getting bulldogged into talking about "Nazi's in the Republican party." An accusation……IF TRUE…….has no bearing on my thoughts as an individual and ideas of where the country needs to go. It's ME who is steering the conversation? Bobert….I have no interest in hearing YOUR diatribe of how Nazi's in the GOP have anything to do with the current administration or any other ties that you would like to attempt to make. Now if that makes you unwilling to continue the talk anyway, then it's you, not me, of loving to hear yourself preach about what bad ideas these are. Once again, you are proving that you can sure talk the talk but when it comes to walking the walk, all you can do is complain how the other guy is fouling up the system. If these are such bad ideas then let's hear your opinion of how you would either change the system or move forward with what's been started. Preferably without going into a monologue of how you believe that Bush is the devil's spawn and is leading everybody down the path of destruction. If you can do that, then we can truly have an intelligent conversation. So……with that said………you game? |
|
06 Feb 05 - 06:51 PM (#1401098) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Ebbie Here's one cogent explication regarding the privatization of Social Security for you, susu's hubby: (Paul Krugman is a professor of economics as well as a columnist.) "The answer, presumably, is that his plan will also involve major benefit cuts over and above those associated with private accounts. And it's true that you can improve Social Security's finances with privatization, as long as you also slash benefits -- just as you can kill a flock of sheep with witchcraft, provided you also feed them arsenic. (Thanks, M. Voltaire.) "Do you believe that we should replace America's most successful government program with a system in which workers engage in speculation that no financial adviser would recommend? Do you believe that we should do this even though it will do nothing to improve the program's finances? If so, George W. Bush has a deal for you." Read More About It |
|
07 Feb 05 - 04:16 PM (#1401855) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert Well, hubster. There you go again telling me what and what you don't want to hear from me? Like what's that all about? If that isn't limiting the scope of a discussion, then what is? And, yeah, if I see someone getting ready to put a leech on soomeone in the interst of curing them of something the first thing to do is to stop them. You may not think that is walking the walk but defending a program is very much proactive. And yeah, if your side really is Hell bent on fixing a progem that ain't broke then sure I can think of ways to improve it. If, however, all you want to really do is push thru another regressive tax cut then leave me out. How about this, hubby. Reduce the percentage paid into the system to around 5% for both the employer and the employee and remove the $90,000 cap? This would help small businesses who might be ablt to get back into helping provide health insurance to their employees. It would certainly help the self employed. And it would reduce the burden of folks making under $90,000... Well, you'll have time, hud, to tell everyone why it won't work... I'll be back in line when I can but right now, I've got to disconnect this pudder and take it to the shop... Bobert |
|
08 Feb 05 - 03:31 AM (#1402276) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Kaleea I'm a thinkin' that I'll stand right here in the RADICAL center for awhile & try to duck whilst you fellers toss them thar t'maters 'n such at each other! I won't bother to suggest that you fellers try to "build a bridge" on accounta I dun went an' seen thet thar Brooklyn bridge thangie when I was way out thar in the Arizona dezert er sum such place where some durn fool put it after he got stuck with it. I'm a tellin' you, thet thar soshull seecuritee thang is a dirty commee plot! Why, them thar poleetishunz way back when got the idee fer it from them thar German yahoos. No wonder it's in such a state of dis-ree-pair! |
|
08 Feb 05 - 07:13 PM (#1403131) Subject: RE: BS: Bobert's State of the Union Address... From: Bobert Still awaitin' yer answer, hubby...... If ya' got one... Bobert |
