Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137855 Jul 5, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know even retired people pay taxes on SS, retirement income, sales and property taxes, don't you? That's not exactly taking.
I'm willing to bet that the property taxes I pay are far higher than yours. Does that make you a "taker"?
I don't know about that. I have multiple houses. They don't necessarilly pay taxes on any of that dependent on income. Capital gains perhaps?

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#137856 Jul 5, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I am pretty sure that Mato (sp?) did all the guitar work as well as the vocals except for Jonny Lang on the one track.
I listened almost exclusively to C&W until I met my wife. Now for the most part we listen to the old rock stations as a compromise. Except that is what she grew up listening to so of course she is not compromising as much as I am. I enjoy getting out to Texas and other states where they have radio stations dedicated to 50's - 70's country.
So, your wife is a 'We'll try it your way, then do it my way from now on.' type of gal, huh? My wife was inot 'head-banger' crap. I like the roots of heavy metal, but not the fruition. Grand Funk, Pink Floyd (tho' I tend to disagree that they were metal at all) Fozzy osborne, and the like.
Bobbi said I was a good person for trying to contact my foster brother. Truth is, I wanted to know if he still had the pix of him, me, Don Henley, and Glen Frey, from back in 1970. I'm childish that way. I want proof that we did meet that summer day.
Oh, country rock is always part of my playlist. CCR, The Eagles, Pure Prarie League, Marshall Tucker, et. al.
But, Rock&Roll is in my Soul.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#137857 Jul 5, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
This has nothijng to do with "choice" on your personal part. It has to do with whether or not you think it proper to take care of people as a society and if so, who? Workers or non-workers.
If you are against the Healthcare Bill you are against taking care of (for the most part) lower income workers. On the other hand you could also be for the elimination of Medicaid and CHiPS and Medicare all of which is paid for with taxes.
MY answer is that if you are going to take care of the non-productive you better take care of the productive. Otherwise why are they going to work? Honestly, would you take a payraise if it meant you lost Medicaid? Would you buy a home or save money if it meant you lost Medicaid?
In a lot of the country, poor people inherit the homes of their parents and then they lose them because of our social net laws.
Most of the time you hit the lottery if your house burns. During certain periods of time such as the recent housing crisis you might be correct.
By hitting the lottery I mean that you end up with a pocket full of money and the opportunity to do it again. If you don't think that is the lottery, what do you think happens when your house burns down and you have no insurance?
Again, this relates to poor people who own their homes but do not have enough income for home insurance.
I am not against taking care of other people and if you ever read what I've said about healthcare and what is actually out there and what I would do for those who cannot be helped by what is already out there, you would not make such an ignorant statement.I know your own voice drowns out the voices of others, so I'm just not going to go to the trouble of repeating it again.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#137858 Jul 5, 2012
I say with all the politeness that I can muster right now. You who thinks he is so thoughtful of others Okb have no idea what people go through whose house burns down. You are selective in your so-called compassion. It is best for me to ignore your posts. I know that seems silly and I have tried, really I have, but you are a pure and unadulterated numbskull.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#137859 Jul 5, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
And after I complemented a Texas politician.
If you thought that was a compliment, you need to work on your compliments. That compliment would be like telling Michelle obama, "That dress looks really good on you... how much additional dress fabric is needed to cover your butt?"

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#137860 Jul 5, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about that. I have multiple houses. They don't necessarilly pay taxes on any of that dependent on income. Capital gains perhaps?
Pension too, all taxable.

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#137861 Jul 5, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
If you thought that was a compliment, you need to work on your compliments. That compliment would be like telling Michelle obama, "That dress looks really good on you... how much additional dress fabric is needed to cover your butt?"
Hey, he complimented a texan. Anything not laced with a LONG string of four letter words, directed at any texan Should be taken as a compliment.
Or so I've heard.
I'm from Alaska. Most folks don't know if we're americans, russian, canucks, or even Where Alaska is, so take your best shot.
Fine by me. Did you see the study that said one third of americans 'don't approve of the constitution? I think they meant The Bill Of Rights. They don't have the brain power to figure out what it actually means, and this study has been done on a regular basis since the fifties, I think.
Nice to know that the stupid line is holding steady at thirty-three percent. Bet they will all vote for barry.
Dumbasses.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#137862 Jul 5, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
You may be correct about "little" to base it on, but you are incorrect about "nothing" to substantiate it. I think it would depend on whether you took his post as an acceptance of the status quo or a call for change.
If the latter, then he clearly stated that all three branches were each individually corrupt with self-interest AND supportive of the self-interest of the other branches. If he believes that, then what is the avenue of change? Certainly not within the government with all three branches working in concert to pretect the status quo.
You're kidding, right?

No ... I guess you're not.

'Tis a pity.

You have no substantiation, as in zero substantiation, nada substantiation, zilch substantiation, zip substantiation.

If you are serious - I think you may want to work a little harder at sticking to what's in a post, not what you think might logically follow.

If you're not serious, and this is just you attempting to stir up sh*t - please, for your own sake if nothing else, stop. You're not very good at it, and you make it incredibly easy to dismiss what you say out of hand.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#137863 Jul 5, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.acura.com/future/NSX#1
A boy toy.
Okeydokey. Thanks.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#137864 Jul 5, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Obamacare supports the working poor that can not get health insurance.
Given a choice to support the non-working (to include retiree's) or the working I will choose to support the working every day of the week.
You can choose to support free-loaders all you want.
I don't choose, Bos.

Since: Nov 09

USA

#137865 Jul 5, 2012
nebka wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me this how many rounds per min can a bolt action fire? compered to a 50cal?? Or a semi fire per min to a THE SHRIKE 5.56 ?
Also i know you need a class 3 license to buy one of these weapons
Surely the rate of fire means something, but the volume isn't the most critical factor. Its the accuracy of the rounds that counts the most....

Since: Nov 09

USA

#137866 Jul 5, 2012
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>Now, if we don't give her a chance, how can she show us if she's grown?
She has a chance, regardless of how BB, or I feel about it.... Its all up to her to either disprove our suspicions, and validate your goodwill gesture. I know that I'm willing to change my mind, when the evidence merits that....

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#137867 Jul 5, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
And yes, that post was a little abrupt, but lets talk about the Affordable Healthcare Bill for what it actually does as opposed to what we are already doing.
We support healthcare for those who have nothing for those that either do not work or work and are really, really poor.

We support healthcare for those that choose to retire rather than work. We do this even if they have millions in savings and live in a mansion.

However, unless your employer provides an affordable, realistic health insurance program we basically tell more than 50% of our workforce "Screw You" if they own a home and have some savings.

So would you rather support those that contribute to this nation (the Affordable Healthcare Bill) or those that do not contribute to this nation?
Neither, Bos. The ones contributing to the nation don't need it and the ones not contributing to the nation don't deserve it.

Since: Nov 09

USA

#137868 Jul 5, 2012
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Man ... them are some pretty sour grapes, Higgins.
Roberts as any kind of progressive is funny; Roberts compromising his principles in this decision in order to secure his legacy or to be loved is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've heard about a Supreme Court Chief Justice (or any member) since the Warren Court or William O. Douglas - although some of the comments about the majority in Bush v Gore came close.
I am wondering about something, however - these elites you speak of.
Are they global, or are you not there yet?
Heh heh heh....

Willie, the evidence is quite palpable, IMO. There is simply no rationale for Roberts' ruling, as until now, he has proven to be a conservative. But even the reasons he gave for this ruling, just don't pass constitutional muster. The contrived argument, of him securing the courts public "image" is clear.

The elites are not all liberals, and neither are progressives, Willie. Those who wring their hands in frustration, at the restrictions placed on them by the US constitution are progressive-statists. I have seen the trend, where the Congress colludes with the CIC with the judiciary, to increase their "elitist" powers.

They seldom "check" each other any more.... They have all become one big conglomeration, sucking more and more liberty from the people. They do this by expanding their tentacles, into every aspect of our lives. The evidence is all around you, sir.... I just don't know what else I can say to make you see....

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#137869 Jul 5, 2012
Ds Higgins1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heh heh heh....
Willie, the evidence is quite palpable, IMO. There is simply no rationale for Roberts' ruling, as until now, he has proven to be a conservative. But even the reasons he gave for this ruling, just don't pass constitutional muster. The contrived argument, of him securing the courts public "image" is clear.
The elites are not all liberals, and neither are progressives, Willie. Those who wring their hands in frustration, at the restrictions placed on them by the US constitution are progressive-statists. I have seen the trend, where the Congress colludes with the CIC with the judiciary, to increase their "elitist" powers.
They seldom "check" each other any more.... They have all become one big conglomeration, sucking more and more liberty from the people. They do this by expanding their tentacles, into every aspect of our lives. The evidence is all around you, sir.... I just don't know what else I can say to make you see....
So do you or don't you agree with Thomas Jefferson, that when the government no longer serves the people, it must be overthrown?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#137870 Jul 5, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
What is there in the Healthcare bill that prevents you from choosing your doctors? Deciding if and when you need surgery? Mandates what you eat, drink, etc.....? Alcohol is a recreational drug.
Obamacare is not a step, but a downright LEAP down the slippery slope of socialism. Anyone who says they don't see that is either blind or is one of those who are so completely lacking in self-respect and brains that they are actually comfortable with the government telling them what to do and how to live their lives.

As for alcohol being a recreational drug, I tend to agree with that. Alcohol does a great deal of damage, no argument there, and it is arguably the most destructive drug in human history.

However, as I said, I personally rarely imbibe alcohol. I do take Communion at church 3 or 4 times a month, and which amounts to maybe a teaspoon of wine once a week. Other consumption--once in a blue moon I might have a glass of wine (usually with a holiday dinner) or a margarita if I happen to be eating out and my husband is driving. I think the last time I had any such was to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary this past March. I don't remember the last time before THAT, and I never drink beer at all.

I do tend to make a habit of things easily, and I realized when I was a teenager that if I started drinking I was headed for disaster. So early on I resolved NEVER to let that happen. There was one time a jerk spiked my soft drink at a Christmas party, but I never bought or accepted or drank any kind of alcohol (except Communion) until our first wedding anniversary, when I allowed myself a glass of wine.

I'm absolutely certain that over the course of my lifetime my AGGREGATE consumption of alcohol would be under one gallon, perhaps under 1/2 gallon.

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#137871 Jul 5, 2012
Ds Higgins1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely the rate of fire means something, but the volume isn't the most critical factor. Its the accuracy of the rounds that counts the most....
That depends what you are shooting at. A person would not take a M-14 for deer hunting a person would want a good bolt action like a 30.06.

If you want to lay alot of lead down range then use a belt feed gun.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#137872 Jul 5, 2012
Ds Higgins1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heh heh heh....
Willie, the evidence is quite palpable, IMO. There is simply no rationale for Roberts' ruling, as until now, he has proven to be a conservative. But even the reasons he gave for this ruling, just don't pass constitutional muster. The contrived argument, of him securing the courts public "image" is clear.
The elites are not all liberals, and neither are progressives, Willie. Those who wring their hands in frustration, at the restrictions placed on them by the US constitution are progressive-statists. I have seen the trend, where the Congress colludes with the CIC with the judiciary, to increase their "elitist" powers.
They seldom "check" each other any more.... They have all become one big conglomeration, sucking more and more liberty from the people. They do this by expanding their tentacles, into every aspect of our lives. The evidence is all around you, sir.... I just don't know what else I can say to make you see....
I expected you to be wailing and lamenting and gnashing your teeth, and we've been participating in this thread together for years now. Even so, I can't figure out why I'm surprised you can't be content with disagreeing with the ruling by Chief Justice Roberts, but have to assume he made his ruling for less than honorable reasons.

It must be tough, having to share your country with all these people who don't think the right way...

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#137873 Jul 5, 2012
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>Obamacare is not a step, but a downright LEAP down the slippery slope of socialism. Anyone who says they don't see that is either blind or is one of those who are so completely lacking in self-respect and brains that they are actually comfortable with the government telling them what to do and how to live their lives.
So which am I - blind, or lacking in self respect?

I don't think I'm either, but hey - I gotta be one or the other, right? So, which is it?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#137874 Jul 5, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a doctor, but that hasn't stopped me from providing first aid. Everyone has their opinions about what's driving the man's politics, and I gave you mine. He acts like he's ashamed about the USA success and prosperity, and apoligizes at every opportunity he gets. That's not analyzing, that's history, and easily viewable on YouTube.

<quoted text>
Heck, I don't have to wait until 2017, barry's not going to be pResident on January 21, 2013.

<quoted text>
I don't understand the personal contempt thing, he seems to be a good father, husband and a genuinely personable guy. He simply has a belief system that I completely disagree with. No reason for contempt, but definitely a reason to vote.
Very well said, especially the last part :)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Oxbow 558,621
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min Rider on the Storm 773,007
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 10 min UidiotraceuMAkeWo... 4,623
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 13 min who 264,930
Moses never existed 19 min Khatru 701
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 27 min AnnieJ 604,724
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 36 min An NFL Fan 119,606