What Is Wrong With America ?

[P@triot]

It has two extreme parties that don't want to fix things...No real ideas...One wants to gut and **** and the other wants to put everyone on the shitter.

The Tea Party can and does want to fix things. But nobody wants to listen because it means relenting power. The Republicans and the Democrats don't want to return the power to the people. And the liberals in this nation don't want Constitutional government because it would mean an end to the gravy train. They would have to actually provide for themselves (God forbid).

 

[RKMBrown]

Yelling at cockroaches is just not very productive.

 

[protectionist]

Military?industrial complex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question: What IS the price of your own Liberty?

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Strawman argument. No one would be bothering the US if it wasn't attacking everybody and their uncle. The US should stop acting like the world's policeman, nobody asked the US to do that. No other country openly supports Israel to the extent the US does, there's no sane reason to do so anyways. It would have avoided 9/11...

It is the goal of Muslim jihadists to attain a world-wide caliphate of Muslim domination. This has been going on for 1400 years, and continues today. The US is just a bystander. Since Mo the Pedophile got all this lunacy going, NOBODY in the world is immune to Muslim aggression and imperialism. You'd be bothered, no matter what the US does.

 

[Contumacious]

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Strawman argument. No one would be bothering the US if it wasn't attacking everybody and their uncle. The US should stop acting like the world's policeman, nobody asked the US to do that. No other country openly supports Israel to the extent the US does, there's no sane reason to do so anyways. It would have avoided 9/11...

It is the goal of Muslim jihadists to attain a world-wide caliphate of Muslim domination. This has been going on for 1400 years, and continues today. The US is just a bystander. Since Mo the Pedophile got all this lunacy going, NOBODY in the world is immune to Muslim aggression and imperialism. You'd be bothered, no matter what the US does.

It is the goal of ignorant parasites to attain a world-wide parasitic state called Tapewormberg . This has been going for for 2014 years. They will eventually killed their host.

.

 

[protectionist]

Why do you hate Mexicans and Muslims so much? From all the hate you keep spewing they must be real trouble makers. Do they smell funny or something?

I am 50% Hispanic (as I've posted many times). My grandparents immigrated here from British Honduras in the 1890s. British Honduras (now called Belize) is immediately adjacent to Mexico, where my grandmother immigrated from. Both my grandparents spoke fluent Spanish, as do I, and from my grandmother's original nationality, I'm actually 25% Mexican. I don't hate myself, didn't hate my grandmother, and I don't hate anybody for what their nationality is.

What I hate is a small group of plutocrats in Mexico who maintain a monopoly economy in Mexico (Ex. Pemex,Telex, etc) that doesn't allow Mexican small businessmen to compete, which would open up millions of jobs and cure Mexico's poverty. Instead these vile plutocrats keep their monopolies intact and use the US as a garbage can to dump their unwanted poor, and conveniently allow us to pay their poverty bill for them (which they needlessly create).

Worse yet, Mexico is carrying on a 21st century type of imperialist war, in which they invade the US, not with military, but with poor people whom they use to relieve themselves of their poverty bill AND reap Billions$$ in remittances, that their economic "troops" extract out of the US economy by swiping jobs from American workers, and then wire to Mexico, which are then reinserted into the Mexican economy.

In short, they take it out of our house, and put it in theirs, but in large amounts. $25 Billion/year. Imperialists of past eras would be dumbfounded at the amounts. The Vikings would be envious.

I'm wondering why you're asking me this, when it was all explained in better detail on my OP >> "Brief Expose' Of The Mexican Invasion Of The United States (1950-2012)" http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html, which I've already provided links for you numerous times in this thread.

As for Muslims, if you don't know why I, and millions of other Americans, are working diligently to stop terrorism and Islamization in America, and alll that has occured with these over the past 23 years, then you're not even qualified to be talking about this subject. Rather than just berate you though, it's more productive to and positive to suggest reading for you, such that you could come back here in a month or so, and speak knowledgably. Maybe even get a passing grade on my Islamization Quiz.

1. They Must Be Stopped by Brigitte Gabriel

2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer

3. Stealth Jihad by Robert Spencer

4. Infiltration by Paul Sperry

5. The Day of Islam by Dr. Paul Williams

6. Sharia: the Threat to America by the Center for Security Policy

I hope you'll take this advice and get up to speed on Islamization. I'd love to see the transformation take place (from ignorance to knowledge). Do it. I'll root for you on it. Really.

7. The Third Jihad (DVD) by Dr. Zuddhi Jasser

8. Muslim Mafia by P.David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry

Thank you for this post.

The glaringly obvious issue that is regularly ignored regarding the illegal immigration issue is the fact that so many Mexicans are trying to flee a lousy, corrupt country. I have to wonder what could be done about that, i.e., what kind of support could we provide to Mexico (and it would have to be significant) to improve the environment there.

Alas, the Democrats welcome the voters and the Republicans welcome the cheap labor, so yet another opportunity is being wasted, and our decay continues.

Read my OP >> "Brief Expose' Of The Mexican Invasion Of The United States (1950-2012)" http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

It gives my suggestion for what might be done about Mexico, and it sure isn't about giving support to Mexico. It's about giving Mexico another 1848 style ass-kicking. Too many people have the idea that Mexico is poor and needs our help. Actually, Mexico has been burglarizing our house, when they don't need anything. Mexico is a WEALTHY country which has gold, silver, oil, agriculture and tourism. The problem is how they organize it all, in a monopoly system that doesn't allow Mexican small businessmen to compete. They really are just imperialist thieves who steal from us, in large quantities, on a regular basis, and have been getting away with it because as you correctly put it > "the Democrats welcome the voters and the Republicans welcome the cheap labor."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It has two extreme parties that don't want to fix things...No real ideas...One wants to gut and **** and the other wants to put everyone on the shitter.

The Tea Party can and does want to fix things. But nobody wants to listen because it means relenting power. The Republicans and the Democrats don't want to return the power to the people. And the liberals in this nation don't want Constitutional government because it would mean an end to the gravy train. They would have to actually provide for themselves (God forbid).

Fearful reactionaryism, ignorance of fundamental economic facts, and the desire to pursue a discriminatory social policy, all of which are offensive to the Constitution and its case law, are in no way going to ‘fix things.’

 

[protectionist]

The US spends more on the military than THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's your problem.

Question: What IS the price of your own Liberty?

The military is not protecting our liberty. At least not any more.

The last legitimate threat to our liberty was in WWII

Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other undeclared wars sin the last 60 years were not fought because of a threat to the US or our liberty.

The US military is protecting our liberty AND LIVES more now than at any time in American history. Without the job they are doing in Afghanistan right now, 100+ Pakistani nuclear warheads would be in position to annihilate the US. Without the military's work we all might be a pile of ashes.

In Afghanistan, it is essential for US troops to be in close proximity to Pakistan and it's arsenal of 100+ nuclear warheads. With the troops in Afghanistan, they can be close enough to the Paki nukes to quickly get to them, and secure them from the jihadists.
Note: If I had my way, the troops would enter Pakistan now and secure those nukes, and bring them back to the US, or to another safe location far away from al Qaeda's central operations.

Afghan pullout seen as new threat for U.S. | Tampa Bay Times

WikiLeaks cables highlight Pakistani nuclear terror threat | World news | The Guardian

'Pakistan nuclear weapons' threat under estimated' | NDTV.com

Enough about Iran, Pakistan's nuclear threat should be our top concern | Fox News

 

[protectionist]

The point is that raising the upper income tax rates WILL NOT FIX THE FISCAL MESS. We could take 100% of the income of the top 10% and it would not eliminate the deficit for one year.

Tax revenue is not the problem------spending is the problem.

Until the govt balances spending to revenue the fiscal mess will only get worse.

There are a number of ways that increasing tax revenues can reduce spending.

One example: Hire MANY more ICE agents, CBP officers, build the Mexican border double fence, and create more immigration courts/jails. Enact a mass deportation similar to Operation ******* in 1954. This would reduce the welfare drain immensely, as well as the remittance drain from the economy ($45 Billion/year just to Mexico alone) It would also cut crime costs$$ as well as compensation to hospitals for unpaid ER bills, racked up under the EMTALA law.

Works for me. The border fence was authorized and funded several years ago. Obama has not built it-------why?

Your idea is in complete contradiction with the policies of obama, the dems, and many republicans in congress.

It sure is, and that's because Obama and the Democrats want immigrants' VOTES, and they don't appear to care how they get them. The Republicans have long favored cheap labor immigrants for their business contributors$$, and are now jumping on the bandwagon for VOTES also. Overall, the whole thing is sickening to watch.

 

[protectionist]

Allow me to offer one solution. How about having the Presidency, Congress, Court judges, and Agency officials not be paid (Anything). Have all the jobs done on a volunteer basis, and stop all money input in elections. And all one term only (eliminating the drive to be re-elected)

That's actually kind of stupid if you think that the problem is we have "rich people" running the country being the problem. Then you would only get rich people running for congress.

People who just want the title as a resume enhancer.

We already have term limits. They are called "elections".


Our real problem is not that the politicians are evil. It's that they are what we want them to be.

The last politician who was honest was Walter Mondale, who told us that taxes would have to go up to meet our obligations.

He lost 49 states.

Then Ronald Reagan, who won those 49 states turned around and raised taxes anyway.

1. I already corrected the part about officials not being paid in another post.

2. No, I wouldn't call elections "term limits". They need to not be able to "serve" again.

3. Reagan raised taxes only intermittantly. Overall, he lowered the top tax brackets tax from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1988, and crashed the economy as a result.

 

[protectionist]

Hey seeing as how increasing tax rates on the ultra wealth won't even HELP, lets just cut the tax rate to zero for everybody and file bankruptcy.

I mean if the people with most of the money don't give a **** to help out. Who cares if we go bankrupt?

At least the ultra rich won't be inconvenienced paying more in income taxes.

The so-called ultra rich are already paying most of the taxes. I think the top 5% is paying 50% of the tax bill. Raising taxes is not the answer.

As to "helping out" who do you think supports charities? poor people?

As to bankruptcy, we are already very close. 17 trillion in debt, 21 trillion by the time obama leaves office. Increasing by a trillion a year.

Spending must be cut. I support a 30% across the board cut--all agencies, all bureaus, all govt salaries, all programs.

Actually, you'd be wrong. Most of the tax debt is spread amongst the population pretty evenly. The problem you guys who get your news from Rush Limpballs is that you think the Income Tax is the only one paid.

Most charities are ripoffs... if they worked, we wouldn't need government agencies to keep poor people from rioting like they did in the 1960's. You're probably too young to remember that.

Now, here's the thing, I probably agree, we need to cut government spending. We can start with that 900 Billion of Corporate Welfare called the Defense Department.

But at some point, we got to man up and tell the rich who control 87% of the wealth in this country to pay their fair share.

You've got the right idea, and I am a supporter of Eisenhower's ideas, and have been since 1956.

 

[protectionist]

1. Completely taken out of context

Yeah - that's the excuse every asshat uses when they've been *****-smacked with facts.

It's not an excuse, it's a report of you LYING by taking my words out of context, as anyone can plainly see. Turds like you **** up a good board like this.

2. As for the ACA, when you get your ass racked in a car accident, and you're needing medical/personal care for what's left of you, and your illustrious private insurer drops you like a hot potato, what will you have to turn to ? Why the ACA, that's what. Well lucky you (even if you're too stupid to know it).

Thank you for proving (yet again) that you are not a conservative. You're a typical Dumbocrat - which means you lie all the time, including lying about being a conservative on a forum because you libtards think that claiming you are "conservatives" will give you credibility. But you're too ****'n stupid to realize that your words not only give you away, but are also what makes you lose credibility. If you were an actual conservative, you wouldn't want government unconstitutionally forcing you to purchase a good or service.

As I think I told you before, YOU'RE not a conservative. Your low tax policies deprive govt of the $$ it needs to provide NATIONAL SECURITY which is the essence of Conservatism, not your dumbbell protect the rich strategies. As for govt forcing the ACA, I don't agree with that part of it.

Furthermore, unlike your ignorant uneducated ass, I don't need to "turn" to the government or the ACA. Unlike you, I'm an adult. I've read my insurance agreement in full, I understand it, and it is a binding contract with them. Just because you're an immature asshole who doesn't read his contract doesn't mean the rest of us are. People like you need the ACA and government because you can't figure out how to act like an adult and handle you're business.

Maybe I've been giving you too much credit. HA HA. You're dumber than I thought.
EARTH TO ROTTWEILER: If/whenever you incur a lifelong ailment, and you change from an asset to a liability in the eyes of your insurance company, they will DROP YOUR DUMB ASS faster than you can blink, and if you think your contract will stop that, I've got news for you, puppy. This country is chock full of people who said the same thing you say now. They gotten dropped left and right. If you think "your" insurer is going to take a big hit, to cover you for life, then man, I need to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. The govt may be interested to see that you are healthy. The insurance company is interested in ONE THING. Making money. Get it ?

And I've noticed that you've either been inaccurate or outright lied about every post you've made. For instance, you said "I support invading Mexico". I asked what conservative is running on that platform that you "support" and I noticed you ran from that question like a little *****. Then you said "I support shutting down all muslim mosques and turning them into animal shelters". I asked what conservative is running on that platform that you "support" and I noticed you ran from that question like a little ***** as well.

Looks like you'll need to do some shoring up of your noticing abilities. I haven't run away from anything. I'll address ANYTHING at all. As far as what conservative is running on that platform (of invading Mexico), I don't a rat's ass who is or isn't. My positions don't rest on what some politicians do or don't support. I go by what I see as the correct thing to do. Period. Same thing applies to closing mosques and turning them into animal shelters. What conservative is running on that platform may be something you care about. I don't care one iota. They're mostly all just a bunch of crooks looking to pad their pockets, in sharp contrast to my way of looking at things.

Oh man - your poor little dumb ass. You don't even know what the definition of "most" is. No wonder you need the government to take care of you. I'm going to post the definition for you (since you need everything done for you - just pretend I'm the government for a moment):

adjective superl. of much or many with more as compar.
1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes.
2. in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.
3. greatest, as in size or extent: the most talent.
noun
4. the greatest quantity, amount, or degree; the utmost: The most I can hope for is a passing grade.
5. the greatest number or the majority of a class specified: Most of his writing is rubbish.
6. the greatest number: The most this room will seat is 150.
7. the majority of persons: to be more sensitive than most.
8. the most, Slang. the ultimate in something: He's the most. That movie was the most.

Now - please tell me where it says "more than half". As you can see from the definition, it says "greatest size/quantity/amount" and "majority". Now, is 90% not "the greatest size/quantity/amount" of any measurement (because that only leaves 10% left in that measurement junior)? Is 80% not the majority of any measurement (because that only leaves 20% left in that measurement junior)? And by the way, how does it feel to be owned this badly in a debate?.

The only thing you're owning is your self-destruction. Most is a word than can have multiple meanings, depending on quantities involved in a particular case. One of those is >> more than half. If there is a box with 100 candies in it, and I take 49, I haven't taken most. If I take 50, I haven't taken most. But if I take 51 (more than half), then yes, I have taken most of the candies. Got it ? You're doing a great job of hanging yourself here. Would somebody out there please tell this poor soul that "most" means more than half ? I guess he got kicked out of school in the 4th grade. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

One last thing - conservatives don't use the term "bourgeois" moron. That's a term used by the parasite class to show their envy towards those that have more than them.

CORRECTION: PSEUDO-Conservative Reaganists like you don't use that term. This is just more of your IGNORANCE of the definition of Conservatism. I guess I have to continually ram it into your dense, Reaganist head, that Conservative means CONSERVING America's values, principles, and culture, with a strong concern for NATIONAL SECURITY, which your stupid, Reaganist, PSEUDO-Conservatism actually endangers by depriving govt of the funds it needs to secure the nation.
You also seem to be unaware than many people who have less, DO NOT ENVY those who have more, and "more" is a subjective thing. I may not have nearly as much money as Bill Gates for instance, but I may have far "more" than him in my ability to play hundreds of songs and tunes on 4 different musical instrument, all on a professional level (guitar, violin/fiddle, mandolin, harmonica). Bill Gates may NEVER "have" that for all of his life, and may never be able to have that, no matter how much money he may "have."

Again dumb ass, $330 per hour working full time (which is 2,080 hours per year junior) is $686,400. While a one time 15% commission of $1,000 is $150. And you paid those guys $150 (then you tried to lie and claim you paid them $330). So you don't see a difference between $686,400 and $150? Really? No wonder you need government to take of you.

You know who the dumbest people in this forum are ? It is those who try to refute a post, and the post they try to refute, refutes them. Right now, right here, THAT'S YOU. Pheeeeww!! The $330/hr is 2013 dollars transposed from $150.hour from 1985, by the BLS inflation calculator. I explained this before AND gave you the BLS link to the inflation calculator. SO you have no excuse to now be tumbling in here like a complete idiot and not knowing this. I also told you my workers did not work full time, so why are you bringing that into the discussion other than to try to divert, distract, confuse the issue. Nice try.

But you didn't pay them in 2013 little man. You paid them in 1985. And at that time, you paid them a measly $150. The fact that you feel the need to provide false "2013" figures instead of what you actually paid them in 1985 just illustrates further what a inferior little man you are - desperate to puff your chest out and look like a big man on campus. Sad.

Your anger is overflowing and (HA HA I have to laugh right here), it completely betrays your attempt to look credible. Really, all you're doing here is blowing off steam because you know you have had your ass handed to you, and you just cant handle that. In my posts, I have posted both the $150 figure AND the $330 figure, and explained openly what each of them were. Anyone looking back to my posts where I first started talking about my former business can see that. So when you come bursting in here with all your "enthusiasm" HA HA, and presenting a bunch of pitiful BS nonsense, all you do is make more of a fool out of yourself than you already have (which is a lot), and hand another victory over for me. I'll say one thing for you. You do show some style in all this. Trouble is substance trumps style and that's the part you severely lack.

Now, if you want to come in here and write long, rambling attack posts you can do that. I, on the other hand, am more interested in addressing the posts of REAL posters in here who post REAL content on the topic. So in order to do that, I would be remiss if I wasted perfectly good forum time addressing your temper tantrums, which have about as much relevant content as a rock in the bottom of a pond.

No need to go any further with this fiasco. Everything I've said is clear to the readers. You may babble on if you wish. I see no point in dignifying your fiasco here any further by continuing to respond to it.

 

[RKMBrown]

1. Completely taken out of context

It's not an excuse, it's a report of you LYING by taking my words out of context, as anyone can plainly see. Turds like you **** up a good board like this.


As I think I told you before, YOU'RE not a conservative. Your low tax policies deprive govt of the $$ it needs to provide NATIONAL SECURITY which is the essence of Conservatism, not your dumbbell protect the rich strategies. As for govt forcing the ACA, I don't agree with that part of it.



Maybe I've been giving you too much credit. HA HA. You're dumber than I thought.
EARTH TO ROTTWEILER: If/whenever you incur a lifelong ailment, and you change from an asset to a liability in the eyes of your insurance company, they will DROP YOUR DUMB ASS faster than you can blink, and if you think your contract will stop that, I've got news for you, puppy. This country is chock full of people who said the a=same thing you say now. They gotten dropped left and right. If you think "your" insurer is going to take a big hit, to cover you for life, then man, I need to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. The govt may be interested to see that you are healthy. The insurance company is interested in ONE THING. Making money. Get it ?



Looks like you'll need to do some shoring up of your noticing abilities. I haven't run away from anything. I'll address ANYTHING at all. As far as what conservative is running on that platform (of invading Mexico), I don't a rat's ass who is or isn't. My positions don't rest on what some politicians do or don't support. I go by what I see as the correct thing to do. Period. Same thing applies to closing mosques and turning them into animal shelters. What conservative is running on that platform may be something you care about. I don't care one iota. They're mostly all just a bunch of crooks looking to pad their pockets, in sharp contrast to my way of looking at things.



The only thing you're owning is your self-destruction. Most is a word than cn have multiple meanings depending on quantities involved in a particular case. On eof those is >> more than half. If there is a box with 100 candies in it, and I take 49, I haven't taken most. If I take 50, I haven't taken most. But if I take 51 (more than half0, then yes, I have taken most of the candies. Got it ? You're doing a great job of hanging yourself here. Would somebody out there please tell this poor soul that "most" means more than half ? I guess he got kicked out of school in the 4th grade. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)



CORRECTION: PSEUDO-Conservative Reaganists like you don't use that term. This is just more of your IGNORANCE of the definition of Conservatism. I guess I have to continually ram it into your dense, Reaganist head, that Conservative means CONSERVING America's values, principles, and culture, with a strong concern for NATIONAL SECURITY, which your stupid, Reaganist, PSEUDO-Conservatism actually endangers by depriving govt of the funds it needs to secure the nation.
You also seem to be unaware than many people who have less, DO NOT ENVY those who have more, and "more" is a subjective thing. I may not have nearly as much money as Bill Gates for instance, but I may have far "more" than him in my ability to play hundreds of songs and tunes on 4 different musical instrument, all on a professional level (guitar, violin/fiddle, mandolin, harmonica). Bill Gates may NEVER "have" that for all of his life, and may never be able to have that, no matter how much money he may "have."



You know who the dumbest people in this forum are ? It is those who try to refute a post, and the post they try to refute, refutes them. Right now, right here, THAT'S YOU. Pheeeeww!! The $330/hr is 2013 dollars transposed from $150.hour from 1985, by the BLS inlation calculator. I expalined this before AND gave you the BLS link to the inflation calculator. SO you have no excuse to now be tumbling in here like a complete idiot and not knowing this. I also told you my workers did not work full time, so why are you bringing that into the discussion other than to try to divert, distract, confuse the issue. Nice try.

But you didn't pay them in 2013 little man. You paid them in 1985. And at that time, you paid them a measly $150. The fact that you feel the need to provide false "2013" figures instead of what you actually paid them in 1985 just illustrates further what a inferior little man you are - desperate to puff your chest out and look like a big man on campus. Sad.

Your anger is overflowing and (HA HA I have to laugh right here), it completely betrays your attempt to look credible. Really, all you're doing here is blowing off steam because you know you have had your ass handed to you, and you just cant handle that. In my posts, I have posted n=both the $150 figure AND the $330 figure and explained openly what each of them were. Anyone looking back to my posts where I first started talking about my former business can see that. So when you come bursting in here with all your "enthusiasm" HA HA, and presenting a bunch of pitiful BS nonsense, all you do is make more of a fool out of yourself than you already have (which is a lot), and hand another victory over for me. I'll say one thing for you. You do show some style in all this. Trouble is substance trumps style and that's the part you severely lack.

Now, if you want to come in here and write long, rambling attack posts you can do that. I, on the other hand, am more interested in addressing the posts of REAL posters in here who post REAL content on the topic. So in order to do that, I would be remiss if I wasted perfectly good forum time addressing your temper tantrums, which have about as much relevant content as a rock in the bottom of a pond.

No need to go any further with this fiasco. Everything I've said is clear to the readers. You may babble on if you wish. I see no point in dignifying your fiasco here any further by continuing to respond to it.

Blah blah blah... cry cry cry. Need some tissues?

Your views are pitiful. Eisenhower would slap your cowardly racist bigoted ass.

 

[protectionist]

It's not an excuse, it's a report of you LYING by taking my words out of context, as anyone can plainly see. Turds like you **** up a good board like this.


As I think I told you before, YOU'RE not a conservative. Your low tax policies deprive govt of the $$ it needs to provide NATIONAL SECURITY which is the essence of Conservatism, not your dumbbell protect the rich strategies. As for govt forcing the ACA, I don't agree with that part of it.



Maybe I've been giving you too much credit. HA HA. You're dumber than I thought.
EARTH TO ROTTWEILER: If/whenever you incur a lifelong ailment, and you change from an asset to a liability in the eyes of your insurance company, they will DROP YOUR DUMB ASS faster than you can blink, and if you think your contract will stop that, I've got news for you, puppy. This country is chock full of people who said the a=same thing you say now. They gotten dropped left and right. If you think "your" insurer is going to take a big hit, to cover you for life, then man, I need to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. The govt may be interested to see that you are healthy. The insurance company is interested in ONE THING. Making money. Get it ?



Looks like you'll need to do some shoring up of your noticing abilities. I haven't run away from anything. I'll address ANYTHING at all. As far as what conservative is running on that platform (of invading Mexico), I don't a rat's ass who is or isn't. My positions don't rest on what some politicians do or don't support. I go by what I see as the correct thing to do. Period. Same thing applies to closing mosques and turning them into animal shelters. What conservative is running on that platform may be something you care about. I don't care one iota. They're mostly all just a bunch of crooks looking to pad their pockets, in sharp contrast to my way of looking at things.



The only thing you're owning is your self-destruction. Most is a word than cn have multiple meanings depending on quantities involved in a particular case. On eof those is >> more than half. If there is a box with 100 candies in it, and I take 49, I haven't taken most. If I take 50, I haven't taken most. But if I take 51 (more than half0, then yes, I have taken most of the candies. Got it ? You're doing a great job of hanging yourself here. Would somebody out there please tell this poor soul that "most" means more than half ? I guess he got kicked out of school in the 4th grade. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)



CORRECTION: PSEUDO-Conservative Reaganists like you don't use that term. This is just more of your IGNORANCE of the definition of Conservatism. I guess I have to continually ram it into your dense, Reaganist head, that Conservative means CONSERVING America's values, principles, and culture, with a strong concern for NATIONAL SECURITY, which your stupid, Reaganist, PSEUDO-Conservatism actually endangers by depriving govt of the funds it needs to secure the nation.
You also seem to be unaware than many people who have less, DO NOT ENVY those who have more, and "more" is a subjective thing. I may not have nearly as much money as Bill Gates for instance, but I may have far "more" than him in my ability to play hundreds of songs and tunes on 4 different musical instrument, all on a professional level (guitar, violin/fiddle, mandolin, harmonica). Bill Gates may NEVER "have" that for all of his life, and may never be able to have that, no matter how much money he may "have."



You know who the dumbest people in this forum are ? It is those who try to refute a post, and the post they try to refute, refutes them. Right now, right here, THAT'S YOU. Pheeeeww!! The $330/hr is 2013 dollars transposed from $150.hour from 1985, by the BLS inlation calculator. I expalined this before AND gave you the BLS link to the inflation calculator. SO you have no excuse to now be tumbling in here like a complete idiot and not knowing this. I also told you my workers did not work full time, so why are you bringing that into the discussion other than to try to divert, distract, confuse the issue. Nice try.



Your anger is overflowing and (HA HA I have to laugh right here), it completely betrays your attempt to look credible. Really, all you're doing here is blowing off steam because you know you have had your ass handed to you, and you just cant handle that. In my posts, I have posted n=both the $150 figure AND the $330 figure and explained openly what each of them were. Anyone looking back to my posts where I first started talking about my former business can see that. So when you come bursting in here with all your "enthusiasm" HA HA, and presenting a bunch of pitiful BS nonsense, all you do is make more of a fool out of yourself than you already have (which is a lot), and hand another victory over for me. I'll say one thing for you. You do show some style in all this. Trouble is substance trumps style and that's the part you severely lack.

Now, if you want to come in here and write long, rambling attack posts you can do that. I, on the other hand, am more interested in addressing the posts of REAL posters in here who post REAL content on the topic. So in order to do that, I would be remiss if I wasted perfectly good forum time addressing your temper tantrums, which have about as much relevant content as a rock in the bottom of a pond.

No need to go any further with this fiasco. Everything I've said is clear to the readers. You may babble on if you wish. I see no point in dignifying your fiasco here any further by continuing to respond to it.

Blah blah blah... cry cry cry. Need some tissues?

Your views are pitiful. Eisenhower would slap your cowardly racist bigoted ass.

Shut up punk! You are a worm in this thread and YOU KNOW IT.

Now go read those books I recommended to you, and then come back and report to me.

 

[protectionist]

7. And now you label me as a Democrat, huh? Well, maybe my position to ban Islam, go to war with Mexico, deport all illegal aliens, and ban affirmative action, inspired that? You think?

Lets see:

• Demand high taxes - but only on the "rich" - check!
  
• Use the term "bourgeois" (because of envy) - check!
  
• Rave about the ACA (which even Dumbocrats now acknowledge to be a complete and total disaster) - check!
  
• Claim that the U.S. needs "fair" salaries - check!
  
• Lie about everything (like claiming you paid someone $686,400 per year when you actually paid them $150 ONE time) - check!
  
• Fiercely (and disgustingly) racist - check!

Yep - you are the poster child for the entire Dumbocrat platform!

1. I'm a registered independent and a REAL Conservative, who like Eisenhower, knows that in order to have secure NATIONAL SECURITY,you must have a BIG, STRONG govt, supplied with $$$, not a small, weak one like you and all your PSEUDO-Conservative Reaganist knuckleheds prefer.

2. I handed you your ass on the ACA and YOU KNOW it. You'd have to be a total idiot to believe that any profit-seeking private insurance co. in America would willingly pay for your personal/medical care 24/7 for your whole life. With the ACA, you've got somewhere to go. Without it, you're sunk. You couldn't be that stupid to not know that.

3. Yeah, The US needs fair salaries. Sorry if "fairness" is a concept foreign to your deranged Reaganist mind. Hope you get well in the future.

4. I NEVER said I paid someone $686,400 per year. YOU said that.

5. Racist ? HA HA. Against whom ? (See Post #1232) It does help to read the thread, if you want to keep from making a fool out of yourself.

 

[Contumacious]

1. I'm a registered independent and a REAL Conservative, who like Eisenhower, knows that in order to have secure NATIONAL SECURITY,you must have a BIG, STRONG govt, supplied with $$$, not a small, weak one like you and all your PSEUDO-Conservative Reaganist knuckleheds prefer..

.

 

[House]

1. I'm a registered independent and a REAL Conservative, who like Eisenhower, knows that in order to have secure NATIONAL SECURITY,you must have a BIG, STRONG govt, supplied with $$$, not a small, weak one like you and all your PSEUDO-Conservative Reaganist knuckleheds prefer..

.

I ignored that guy for a reason. If you're gonna make me read his posts, at least comment on what you're quoting, please.

 

[protectionist]

1. I'm a registered independent and a REAL Conservative, who like Eisenhower, knows that in order to have secure NATIONAL SECURITY,you must have a BIG, STRONG govt, supplied with $$$, not a small, weak one like you and all your PSEUDO-Conservative Reaganist knuckleheds prefer..

.

Yeah he had a BIG, STRONG govt, supplied with $$$. So did the guy who kicked his ass in World War II (the one in my avatar), which is the only reason why you're here now, able to shoot your mouth off.

 

[RKMBrown]

1. I'm a registered independent and a REAL Conservative, who like Eisenhower, knows that in order to have secure NATIONAL SECURITY,you must have a BIG, STRONG govt, supplied with $$$, not a small, weak one like you and all your PSEUDO-Conservative Reaganist knuckleheds prefer..

.

I ignored that guy for a reason. If you're gonna make me read his posts, at least comment on what you're quoting, please.

I think the point is that the Guy's opinions on this topic are clearly facist. But yeah you're right, putting him on ignore is probably the best way to deal with guys like him.

 

[protectionist]

Strawman argument. No one would be bothering the US if it wasn't attacking everybody and their uncle. The US should stop acting like the world's policeman, nobody asked the US to do that. No other country openly supports Israel to the extent the US does, there's no sane reason to do so anyways. It would have avoided 9/11...

It is the goal of Muslim jihadists to attain a world-wide caliphate of Muslim domination. This has been going on for 1400 years, and continues today. The US is just a bystander. Since Mo the Pedophile got all this lunacy going, NOBODY in the world is immune to Muslim aggression and imperialism. You'd be bothered, no matter what the US does.

It is the goal of ignorant parasites to attain a world-wide parasitic state called Tapewormberg . This has been going for for 2014 years. They will eventually killed their host.

If you post a quote, address the subject OF THAT POST, or don't quote it. If you want just whine about parasitism, you may, but your post here should have been posted independently.

 

[protectionist]

.

I ignored that guy for a reason. If you're gonna make me read his posts, at least comment on what you're quoting, please.

I think the point is that the Guy's opinions on this topic are clearly facist. But yeah you're right, putting him on ignore is probably the best way to deal with guys like him.

Something akin to hiding under the desk to escape the truth, because it make you uncomfortable to have to put forth lies like >> "the Guy's opinions on this topic are clearly facist".....which is clearly ludicrous, and shows an ignorance of those opinions.

NO, the best way to deal with me is to do what I advised. To read the list of books I recommended, so you'll have the knowledge to know what I'm talking about, instead of babbling through the thread, in ignorance.