Obama '08?

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Many good things will be coming along in the near future.

Really?

What?

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Aren't you a pompous ass?

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

I'm curious if you learned anything today, and what your response to Foxfyres last post would be (the one about people not having a stake in the amount of money the government spends).

It would be nice if you could respond to that post so we can have a conversation.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I don't look up other folks nose when I converse with them.

you or foxy...

good day.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Aren't you a pompous ass?

yes, rockhead is a pompous ass, he's the only one on A2K. I used to be a pompous ass but Vicodin 4 x daily plus thorazine has drastically improved my personality. Eventually I will become a clone of either foxfyre or okie. should I opt for a pre-frontal lobotomy I shall become nearly H2O man.

3 Replies

@Rockhead,

Figures.
Convenient.

Good day.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Glad to hear your condition has stabilized.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

I'd like to point out that I didn't mean the "...if you learned something today" comment to sound smug. You asked a question about the % of people who pay zero income taxes.

Now that you know 43% pay zero income taxes and some of them actually get more money refunded to them then they even put in to the system. And that 10% pay next to nothing.

Do you think that's a problem.

If you think me asking you a question is smug, then maybe you should stick to word games.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

no.

you picked up on smug right where I did.

(i keep up with this economy stuff more than you might want to believe)

and for future use, I have never taken any form of public assistance other than Bush's stupid checks.

on with the lively discourse, please...

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

dys, thanks for my laugh of the day.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

you picked up on smug right where I did.

Not because I meant it to be smug. I just couldn't find anything else in my post that could be perceived as being smug. You can fault me for a bad choice of words.

Quote:

and for future use, I have never taken any form of public assistance other than Bush's stupid checks.

What does this have to do with the conversation?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I am in the income bracket you keep thinking has it so soft. (by choice, I might add)

and I pay my taxes. (even on food,unlike Illinois)

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

I shall become nearly H2O man.

In your dreams scarecrow Laughing

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

no.

Here's the part of Foxy's post that I was referring to.

Foxfyre wrote:

Can you not see the built-in danger and the very real encouragement of corruption when more than half the country has little or no material stake in their government? Can you not appreciate how they wouldn't care how much taxes are increased or how much government spends? Can you appreciate how that can affect their vote? If you depend on the government to furnish your bread and butter, you are going to keep voting for people who will keep furnishing that to you and won't care about the consequences for anybody else.

If everybody has a stake in the system, however, and everybody is contributing something according to his/her means, and everybody suffers the consequences of what government does or does not do, then I think those who vote will consider those consequences before they mark their ballot or pull that lever.

And that is far more healthy to sustain a Constitutional democratic republic. And it also extends respect and dignity to the poor in a way that a nanny state never does.

You read that, and you don't see a problem?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

to be honest, I gave up arguing around foxy and don't read her posts on purpose.

she has never been wrong.

i concede...

(the poor have more at stake than you comprehend)

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

Well, then you're NOT the demographic of people who I think has it soft.

I'm talking about people who pay ZERO income taxes, and some who receive more back then they put in. THEY have it too soft.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

She's been plenty wrong before (as we all have). I agree with this particular point of hers though.

I don't understand why you're making this conversation more difficult than it has to be.

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

(the poor have more at stake than you comprehend)

Please tell me what you think I'm missing.

Maybe to help you understand a little more about what I may possibly understand.

Parents = 1 receiving disability, other a clerk at a grocery store
Sibling 1 = casino dealer, 1 kid
S2 = student, 2 kids
S3 = McDonalds cashier
S4 = unemployed, 1 kid
S5 = student

The Rockefeller's we are not.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

cuz I really have no need to have it.

I'm not here to change your mind.

mebbe to make you think once in a while.

inaccurate numbers in slanted arguments bug me.

no worries.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

I'm not knocking you personally, I don't do that much.

I think the off-shore money and corporate shenanigans are a lot more important than what poor joe isn't paying for his share.

I got a meal to fix.

bye now.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know