![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Classy. You've been studying at the woodchip's School for Boys and Young Gentlemen?Sergeant Thorne wrote:Maybe barrow your balls back from the feminists long enough to not be such a sexist against your own gender.
Freedom and the size of government are not mutually exclusive concepts. Also, this statement can be proven 100% false.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Lunacy is trading freedom for big government--something that has never actually served the interests of the people effectively.
Thinking is bad!Sergeant Thorne wrote:The problem with you folks is you're too cerebral...
Interesting statistic. Can you back that up with some hard data?Sergeant Thorne wrote:...and you just like to ★■◆● with things endlessly, thinking nothing of a 50% or less success rate.
Coming from a right-wing anarchist, this statement means nothing.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Trump is eccentric, and he's a businessman, but he isn't a lunatic.
Well, I can't vouch for Hillary either and I agree that she's probably not the best "example" of the female species to be representing our first woman president. But Trump certainly doesn't represent what's best in the male species either. In fact, he's probably the one of the worst on the planet, so pick your poison ST.Sergeant Thorne wrote:What? You mean like every man in the U.S. would feel like they're being tag-teamed by a couple of damn liberal women?If they held the office with honor, upheld the constitution, brought jobs/industry back to the country, strengthened the courts, and decreased the size of government, I could find it in my heart to respect them. But since this is Hillary we're talking about, no matter who her running mate is (or what your politics are
) I say we replace the "glass ceiling" with about 12 inches of solid acrylic.
Nevermind that he's shown himself through the debates to be completely unqualified...Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'll take Trump, and that largely because he's not establishment.
BUZZZZZZ! Wrong.Spidey wrote:By definition…laws and governance limit freedoms...excessive government would be mutually exclusive to freedoms.
My point was that the concepts of freedom and governance are not mutually exclusive and you did not show otherwise.Spidey wrote:No it’s not wrong, there are just a few exceptions.
Absolutely untrue. Gridlock can happen whenever there are conflicting ideologies. Plus "small government" is an arbitrary size. You have no idea what you are talking about.Sergeant Thorne wrote:With regard to the number of laws in relation to the size of government, a small government does not suffer from the inability to pass necessary laws in order to preserve freedom.
Oppression is built into the character of the law, not the quantity of laws. It's completely unrelated to the size of government. You can have big government with few laws and small government with many laws.Sergeant Thorne wrote:The problem is rather the other way around, in reality--that large government ensures an ever-increasing number of laws, leading inevitably to oppression, not greater freedom.
Like healthcare.ZERO implicit right to continue to own something you cannot afford
exactly, unless you make HEALTCARE ITSELF a right of birth into the US society. Many of us wish that to be the case. Most of the rest of the civilized world recognizes that right.Spidey wrote:In this context rights and freedoms are interchangeable.
Like healthcare.ZERO implicit right to continue to own something you cannot afford
So what? Most of what we benefit from as a country is done this way. I don't see how this is some sort of argument against national health care. I'll gladly pay more taxes for national health care.woodchip wrote:To pay for it the govt will add a tax...
two wars in the Muslim world ran up some of it and the rest? What you have to show for that spending is:woodchip wrote:And just how far are you willing to let the govt. waste ever more of our tax dollars. For gods sake, we're 20 trillion in debt already...12 of which was added on in the last 8 years. What do we have to show for it.
the usual right-wing recipe for disaster and justification via made-up reality.IRS has collected record amounts of taxes and spent every last dime of it and then spent more. We're a train wreck waiting to happen. Throw in a national health care proggy and that could be the train conductor falling asleep just before dead mans curve.
further, if one wishes extra bells and whistles beyond good,comprehensive health care, one can purchase supplemental plans. Even then, the ticket would be vastly under the current $2100 per month I'm shelling out(for two adults).Ferno wrote:You wouldn't even have to pay that much.
Depending on your income, you could pay zero up to 75 a month if you're a single person, zero to 136 a month for a couple or family of two, or zero to 150 a month of you have three or more family members.
CAR payments cost more than healthcare.
I inherited a few million, then I inherited a bit more than that. Overall, the balance sheet is still working in my favor, but I cannot restrict my income to $85K per annum, where I got the break(only because I am legally liable for 3 grandkids as well), and the break was only $900 of the total. Now, I pay $1600 per month, and the deductables and out of pocket make up the rest of what I quoted.woodchip wrote:Funny slick, how at the start of Obamacare you said you were entitled to subsidies and only have to pay a couple hundred a month. What happened?
actually, no I'm not. I've been helping out with a couple projects of late, and have seen a lot of polling. The crossover for Dems coming this year is going to less than both 2008 and 2012, I'll guarantee you that at this point.woodchip wrote:Stop being blind and/or obtuse slick. If you can't acknowledge that Dems are upset and might vote for Trump, then you are being exceptionally tone deaf.
Except the Iraq war was over. The Bush years did not see this kind of spendingcallmeslick wrote:two wars in the Muslim world ran up some of it and the rest? What you have to show for that spending is:woodchip wrote:And just how far are you willing to let the govt. waste ever more of our tax dollars. For gods sake, we're 20 trillion in debt already...12 of which was added on in the last 8 years. What do we have to show for it.
So you would have to of gone to your local bank for cash?callmeslick wrote:1. You can go to an ATM and get at your money.
May not of anywayscallmeslick wrote:2. Unemployment never hit 40%
No proof that there would of been. Food stamps and Disability claims did sky rocket.callmeslick wrote:3. No large scale bread lines or wholesale dependance on food banks and soup kitchens
I wonder how much of the 20 trillion interest payment could pay for shovel ready jobs. Just wait until interest rates start going up:callmeslick wrote:the usual right-wing recipe for disaster and justification via made-up reality.IRS has collected record amounts of taxes and spent every last dime of it and then spent more. We're a train wreck waiting to happen. Throw in a national health care proggy and that could be the train conductor falling asleep just before dead mans curve.
Still think that 20 trillion is a ant on a elephants ass?Given its sheer size, if the interest rate on that debt were to rise by even 1%, the annual federal deficit rises by $190 billion. A 2% increase in interest rate levels would up the federal deficit by $380 billion, and if rates were 5% higher, the annual federal deficit rises by $950 billion.
yes. they did, they just depleted available cash. Like most unbudgeted projects the bills came in later, and are STILL coming in, frankly.woodchip wrote:Except the Iraq war was over. The Bush years did not see this kind of spending
um, no, with loss of liquidity, NO BANKING would be possible. Emergency bailout money saved you from that. Twice, under Obama's watchSo you would have to of gone to your local bank for cash?
you realize that 20 trillion is the accumulation, and that about 8 trillion DID go for jobs.I wonder how much of the 20 trillion interest payment could pay for shovel ready jobs. Just wait until interest rates start going up:
yes, in very real terms. Funny how you dismiss the VERY real possibility of a total economic collapse, which experts all view as having been extremely likely, yetStill think that 20 trillion is a ant on a elephants ass?
Oh, don't be so deluded. Trump could only win because those disaffected Dems decide to sit out the vote. I'm almost in that camp this time. I hate all the candidates with equal vigor and I want neither one as president. Besides, I can guarantee you that most Sanders supporters certainly wouldn't vote for an unfit, racist, misogynist, egomaniacal, geographically clueless, loudmouthed idiot like Trump anyway.woodchip wrote:Stop being blind and/or obtuse slick. If you can't acknowledge that Dems are upset and might vote for Trump, then you are being exceptionally tone deaf.