Air France Pilot arrested again

[Vladimir Lenin]

What the hell is "subtle internet innuendo"?

something you lack?

or is that too "big" for you too, Webster?

 

[mar]

Subtle internet innuendo

I'd support an effort to impeach Bush.

Not only that, I think half (or more) of his cabinet should be indicted (a la Reagan).

How's that for subtle?

Here's more: Timebuilder, you're drive-by-style criticism of the Kennedys and Clinton belies your true partisan politics.

If it's Republican it's right.

If it's Democrat it's wrong.

Can you think outside such a narrow little perspective?

Try to mix it up a little. It makes for *much* more interesting reading. Keep us guessing a little. Make us wonder if you're really serious or not.

On the other hand it has occured to me that maybe you really are just joshin' all of us anyway.

 

[Timebuilder]

Hey! I get it!!

By "drive by style" you mean the JFK motorcade going by the Texas Book Depository, right? A little macabre humor?

Most people don't know the source of the Kennedy fortune, or the outright hypocricy of Ted Kennedy sponsoring bill after bill that makes you and I give up our money to fund his government programs while the source of his own money is the result of a crime against poor investors, by today's standards. Seems a little fishy to me, not to mention vaccuous and self righteous.

You'll note that I did not say that Clinton was responsible for the poor ethics that happened on his watch, but only that he has helped to contribute to a new level of quibbling and parsing of words along with general moral decay.

I am the last person who will tell you "if it's Republican, it's right". Just look at the record of my own Senator, Arlen Spector, for starters. You can't find a more liberal republican. Hopefully, we can replace him with Pat Toomey, who incidentally, flys his own Seneca. And, who understands the constitution.

The Bush administration has bent over backwards to help the democrat agenda, and has only been bitten on the butt for his trouble.

I am against government entitlements that are forever expanding. Where in the constitution does it say that we should provide healthcare and prescription drugs for ANYONE? Why should Ted Kenedy and other rich persons over 65 get free drugs on my tax dollar?

The democrats are staunchly against a means test for government benefits, which means that Bill Gates, Ted Kennedy, and Donald Trump, along with all of the names we don't know, will all be eligible for medical and drug benefits. If you think this is a good idea, then by all means, explain to me just why this is a good idea. I have yet to hear any intelligent argument against means testing for benefits.

Maybe you need to think outside the box a little, old friend?

 

[secks]

Third, executives engaged in the biggest swindles since Joseph Kennedy in the 1920's. Did you know that the huge Kennedy fortune was built on the then-legal practice of insider trading?

I thought the Kennedy's made their fortune bootlegging during prohibition. Oh well, I can't imagine that people even listen to Ed Kennedy (the drunk, the liar, the murderer) anymore.

It is incorrect to lay the wrongdoings of these Enron and Arthur Anderson executives at the feet of Clinton, just because it happened on his watch. It is correct, however, to blame the declining moral and ethical fiber of our society for the declining ethics in accounting and trading that are the hallmarks of this wave of scandals.

People have a preconceived notion that Republican = evil, ruthless businessman. This is why Bush has caught such a great deal of heat for these corporate scandals, whether or not he had any part in them. The liberal press scrambled to show some link, any link, between the administration and these corporate criminals.

Fourth, we are still adapting to a global economy, where fast shipping, the internet, and hundredes of millions of people who are happy to make three American dollars a day are changing the landscape of manufacturing. We are going to have to adapt as a nation and find the things that we make best, and then be careful to avoid regulating the companies out of business, or simply out of the country. In many places, the environmental movement has accomplished its ultimate purpose: don't build anything here, and don't manufacture anything here. We have avoided environmental impact alright, but has this come at a price we are willing to pay as a nation? We have raised the minimum wage due to cries of "fairness!", but are we being fair to the thousands of Americans whose labor cost has priced them out of the job market? I think not.

Our country has basically lost it's entire manufacturing base, thanks to globalisation. Capitalists argue that this shift results in lower prices for domestic products. I don't buy it. Sure, in some isolated instances, cheaper manufacturing results in cheaper products. However, I submit that most of the money saved by relocating hardly affects product prices. The downside to globalisation is huge domestic job losses. So, the real question is: Does the marginal drop in price for foreign-built products warrant the loss of millions of domestic jobs? NO.

Unfortunately, the trend is worsening. Accountants, customer service reps, even engineers and mathematicians are being replaced by foreign labor. The host countries benefit greatly, whereas we lose jobs. Additionally, many of these countries (India and China, for example) engage in predatory trade practices which punish imports from the U.S.

I earned a Comp. Sci. degree from a prestigious university only to learn that the jobs had basically dried up/become shaky due to outsourcing. Now I'm back working on an Elect. Engr. degree and fear that I will again be left with bleak career prospects. What the hell are young people supposed to do to make a living these days? If it doesn't work out, I'll join Norfolk Southern as a RR engr. At least they make a good living.

Fifth, record deficits are the result when you must spend more than you are taking in, in this case to ramp up our hoplessly poor preparations for defense and anti-terrorism in the wake of 9-11. Fortunately, this condition will not last as we stimulate spending with tax cuts. I hope there will be more tax cuts among those people who pay the MOST taxes in America, so we can really get this wagon rolling.

Deficits are the main reason I don't wholeheartedly support our role in Iraq. Although I recognize the need to eventually eradicate extremist regimes, this may not be the proper time to make enemies. We should focus on repairing our economy and withdrawing troops from foreign land. I believe that by ending our military presence overseas, domestic terrorist attacks will cease to occur.

Unfortunately, there is such lack of knowlege by many in the democrat base that this will be seen as "tax cuts for the rich" instead of "tax cuts for those who will need to hire more employees". Also, there is a lack of understanding that tax cuts increase revenues to the treasury.

I agree that the rich shouldn't be unfairly punished for their success. However, many corporations pay absolutely no taxes due to clever tax schemes. That is absolutely unacceptable, and is one of the many reasons for overhauling the tax code.

 

[flywithastick]

Re: Subtle internet innuendo

I'd support an effort to impeach Bush.

Go for it! The Constitution provides for it, which is what makes it such a valuable, timeless document.

Not only that, I think half (or more) of his cabinet should be indicted (a la Reagan).

Now you're stretching it a bit beyon belief.

If it's Republican it's right.

If it's Democrat it's wrong.

I used to claim I was independent and a non-partisan free thinker. That was before the national election of 1992. My vote for the independent elected "everything's for sale, d@mn she's cute" clinton. Now I support the side that believes most like I do and, most importantly, can win.

Can you think outside such a narrow little perspective?

having a narrow "perspective" (or more appropriately, well defined set of standards) doesn't mean someone is necessarily less smart or blind to other viewpoints. It just means, possibly, that someone has a more firm definition of what they believe.

Kind of like the opposite of a moderate (one who has no convictions).

Vladimir Lenin quote:

Your feeble attempts at subtle internet innuendo reek of a 65 year old, logging on for the first time, using those handy AOL's CDs...

wish I could buy you for what you're worth and sell you for what you believe you're worth. I could buy another couple of planes.

 

[secks]

something you lack?

or is that too "big" for you too, Webster?

Do I really have to explain why your statement didn't make sense? Do you really not understand why my statement was neither subtle nor an innuendo? It's as if you lifted that phrase from another source without even considering the original context. Or perhaps you strung a couple of words together hoping that we'd "get the drift". Next time you formulate an insult, ask a native speaker of English to proofread it.

 

[Timebuilder]

However, many corporations pay absolutely no taxes due to clever tax schemes. That is absolutely unacceptable, and is one of the many reasons for overhauling the tax code.

While "sticking it to the big, rich corporations" is a tempting idea, it won't work. Most corporations avoid income tax by being officially based somewhere else, and they are often multinational in their structure. Many foreign corporations who are the direct competitors of the corporations we would most like to tax are already receiving support from their home governments, and taxing those who we CAN tax will place those corporations at a competitive disadvantage, which eventually makes the corporation leave here, or so unable to compete that it fails.

Of course, we also have to remember this: US investors are relying on these corporations to remain healthy and provide a dividend to the investors, which is their main support during their retirement years. Taxing the corporations could reduce or eliminate that dividend, harming the corporation at least and forcing millions of retirees on to government support at worst, removing the tax money from the treasury that the corporation had just paid!

 

[Swass]

Does anyone find Vlad's avatar a little unusual (disturbing)? Maybe trying to provoke arguments? I think this guy is just a 22yr old kid who not only doesn't have a life but gets a chubber thinking he's gotten under the skin of a few members on this forum. I believe he/she is best ignored.

 

[Timebuilder]

Maybe too many people enjoyed his old avatar??

 

[Singlecoil]

Taxing the corporations could reduce or eliminate that dividend, harming the corporation at least and forcing millions of retirees on to government support at worst, removing the tax money from the treasury that the corporation had just paid!

Newsflash, TB. Bush already "removed the tax money from the treasury that the corporation had just paid" by eliminating the tax on dividends.

Your next talking point will be "that money was being taxed twice, that is unfair." There are many instances of this, every time you buy a gallon of gas or an airline ticket, you are being "taxed twice" according to this definition.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

Next time you formulate an insult, ask a native speaker of English to proofread it.

another typical nationalist comment from another bigot, chill out old man, your Depends may be leaking

 

[Timebuilder]

Newsflash, TB. Bush already "removed the tax money from the treasury that the corporation had just paid" by eliminating the tax on dividends.

It isn't a news flash for me, but it could be for some people. Removing the tax paid on dividend by individuals definitely improved the quality of life for many seniors, and encouraged others to invest more money in corporations. This additional incentive to invest helps corporations to invest in new equipment and research, and new employees to do the required work. Those new employees become taxpayers instead of recipients of government money.

Any time you can do so, reducing taxes is the way to go. And yes, taxing money more than once has become a despicable habit in our country, and it is ALWAYS wrong to do so.

It is not the intended purpose of our government to redistribute wealth. Every time we do so, we lose a part of the uniqueness of the American model and become more like the other nations where the state is supreme over individual freedom. Remember these words? "From every one according to his ability, to every one according to his need?" It's from The Communist Manifesto.

We must be wary to keep America on the right track. No pun intended.

 

[Timebuilder]

another typical nationalist comment from another bigot, chill out old man, your Depends may be leaking

Ah, bathroom humor. The lowest rung.

I am overwhelmed by the wit...

the wisdom...

the lack of punctuation...