okie
 
  -2  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 11:04 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

You think there is a black neighbor only a couple of houses away but you don't know for certain??!!

There used to be, because I talked with him, but I am not sure if the house has sold or not. You need to understand that I do not live in an area of small lots, so a house or two away is at least a hundred yards or so. The only neighbors I see on a regular basis and know better are the ones right beside us and directly across the street.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 11:05 am
@okie,
okie, Congrats for one of your most intelligent posts on a2k. Now, to work on all of your other misconceptions...
okie
 
  1  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 11:40 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Congrats for one of your most intelligent posts on a2k.

Thank you, ci. I try to use logic. Being Japanese American as I think you are, you no doubt would know about discrimination by some, but you have obviously been very successful. I think I told you this, but I recently stopped at Camp Amache in Colorado and while there, met and talked with some very nice Japanese Americans, one man said he was in a camp like that in California during the war, because of FDR's policy. That was a sad chapter in our history, and you are very aware that it was instituted by a Democratic president still considered by Democrats to be one of the greatest if not the greatest president in history, Franklin Roosevelt.

The whole concept of discrimination is an interesting one, and I have come to truly believe that success comes from within. We do not succeed or fail depending largely upon outside influences. I am convinced that until minorities reject the race hustlers among them and buy into the principle that they can almost totally determine their own success, until they do that, there will continue to be problems.

I heard once when our kids were in school that "nothing like success breeds success." The idea was that a good grade in a class can help motivate more good grades, not only in that class but other classes. Another benefit of good grades is a better attitude by the teacher toward the student. I believe the same dynamics are true in society as well. If people study hard and work hard, not only do they breed more success, but they improve the attitude of others toward them, which breeds more success still. Part of this dynamic involves also their own attitude toward themselves and others. For example, if you fail, you are more likely to walk around with a chip on your shoulder, especially if you want to blame your failures upon everyone else besides yourself.

One of the central messages of the Democratic Party to minorities is that you are not capable to succeed without the government intervening and making things fair for you. The message is that you failed and will continue to fail because society will not treat you fairly and will not allow you to become educated or smart enough to succeed on your own, unless your sugar daddy government helps you. Unfortunately, too many have bought into this message and they believe this self defeating philosophy. Face it, ci, Obama's religion was based upon Black Liberation Theology, which is based upon the self image of failure and unfairness in society, so that wealth needs to be forcibly taken from the "haves" and redistributed to the "have nots." It is Marxist politics at its foundation, masquerading as a religion. Conservatives tried to warn the people about this, to no avail.

I have hope that things will change, and sometimes negative things can work for positive change. For example, Obama's election might turn out to be one of the best things that has ever happened to the conservative movement in this country, because it has opened more eyes to the fact that liberalism does not work.
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 11:41 am
Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19990&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Net Neutrality: Job-Killing Zombie

Politician swear they are laser-focused on creating job, but it is seemingly impossible to kill wrong-headed policies that undercut growth and jobs, say Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, and Sam Batkins, the coordinator of regulatory issues at American Action Forum.

For two examples, consider health care reform and net neutrality.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had more funerals than Tom Sawyer -- but the legislation nonetheless became law, despite the dire policy implications for jobs, federal spending and health care.

Costly new regulatory burdens on business, higher insurance costs for employers and $500 billion in new taxes are an immediate threat to jobs in the United States.

Many now predict that "net neutrality" -- a Washington power grab that seeks to dictate how private telecoms prioritize use of limited bandwidth -- is walking the Green Mile. As Congress scurried to finish its legislative business before returning to the campaign trail, the compromise net neutrality legislation died in committee, say Holtz-Eakin and Batkins.

But its death gives the Federal Communications Commission another chance to regulate the bandwidth decisions of private companies.

This could spell death to the thousands of jobs created each year by the billions of dollars private telecoms spend on infrastructure.

Imposing net neutrality could reduce broadband expansion and cost the U.S. economy upwards of 300,000 jobs, according to a new Phoenix Center study.

Just a 10 percent decline in IT infrastructure investment, Brett Swanson of Entropy Economics found, could eliminate 502,000 jobs and $62 billion in gross domestic product growth.

The next Congress should put net neutrality and other job-killers in their rightful place: the ashbin of discredited policy ideas.

Source: Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Sam Batkins, "Net Neutrality: Job-Killing Zombie," October 27, 2010.

cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 11:58 am
@ican711nm,
Garbage post without any evidence for their claims.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 12:01 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

This could spell death to the thousands of jobs created each year by the billions of dollars private telecoms spend on infrastructure.


Uh, why is this, exactly? Because this sure sounds like bullshit to me.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 01:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Cice, what's your evidence that it was as you claim a "Garbage post without any evidence for their claims?"
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 01:29 pm
@ican711nm,
The "evidence" is right in front of you; GW Bush gave tax breaks to the wealthy from 2001 to 2006. The following is from Wiki:
Quote:
President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress passed a series of massive tax cuts from 2001 to 2006. Their cuts lowered everyone’s taxes, but they were skewed heavily to the wealthy. More than half of the total benefit from the Bush tax cuts this year alone will accrue solely to the richest 5 percent of Americans while the middle 20 percent of Americans will reap only 7 percent of the benefit.


ican, Show us how Bush's tax cuts increased our economy and jobs?
talk72000
 
  0  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 03:36 pm
@ican711nm,
You are back to the Love of Money mantra "Save the rich from taxes". Twisted Evil Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Tue 2 Nov, 2010 10:53 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I try to use logic.


KEep trying. Maybe, one day you might succeed!
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 04:02 am
"> " type="application/x-shockwave-flash"width='500' height='410' >

Don't know how to fix the code so there is only one. I thought this infographic was cool and this seemed like a good place to put it.

Question: Where is the fat compared to where the GOP wants to do the cutting?

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 04:08 am
http://www.weathersealed.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/brackets.jpg
Sorry, found this too while searching.

Also cool
R
T
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 09:49 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The "evidence" is right in front of you; GW Bush gave tax breaks to the wealthy from 2001 to 2006. The following is from Wiki:
Quote:
President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress passed a series of massive tax cuts from 2001 to 2006. Their cuts lowered everyone’s taxes, but they were skewed heavily to the wealthy. More than half of the total benefit from the Bush tax cuts this year alone will accrue solely to the richest 5 percent of Americans while the middle 20 percent of Americans will reap only 7 percent of the benefit.


ci, a question for you, how much of the income tax does the top 5% income people pay in this country? And how much does the middle 20% pay in income tax? I am serious. I want an answer, because it would help you understand the truth about what you just posted.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 09:53 am
@okie,
You mean, in terms of total dollars? Or percentage?

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 10:09 am
@okie,
okie, It's not how much the top 5% pays in income taxes; it's how much they can afford to pay on income they "earn" in the US.

Simply put, it's not fair to transfer this huge debt to our children and grandchildren. It's not about how much the wealthiest Americans pay, it about how much debt is increasing to be transferred to our children. You think that's fair?

You have absolutely no common sense, logic, or compassion for our children's future.
okie
 
  1  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You mean, in terms of total dollars? Or percentage?

Cycloptichorn

percentage of tax revenue collected.
okie
 
  1  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, It's not how much the top 5% pays in income taxes; it's how much they can afford to pay on income they "earn" in the US.

No, it is not about what they can afford to pay. You claimed that they got all the tax cuts. My point is that perhaps you should not get a tax cut if you pay no taxes anyway. The truth is that many people already paying no taxes got more money given to them.

You want to talk about fairness, do you think its fair to get money back if you never paid anything into the system to begin with?
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:06 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You mean, in terms of total dollars? Or percentage?

Cycloptichorn

percentage of tax revenue collected.


You do realize that the higher percentage the Rich and Super-rich pay, the more total share of American wealth they own, right?

When the percentages of taxes paid by the rich go UP it's an indicator that their levels of wealth went UP, not down.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:06 pm
@okie,
okie's lie:
Quote:
You claimed that they got all the tax cuts.


Show me where I ever said "they got all the tax cuts?"

H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyco wants to penalize people for increasing their earnings.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1838
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 03/18/2025 at 05:40:19