On 2012-08-14, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

I see. You can't win an discussion on point so you resort to name calling

Only if you are, in fact, dumb as a stump.

nb

--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

In article ,
" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:37:26 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:50:25 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Davej wrote:
On Aug 13, 2:31 pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

Well, they certainly can't give tax breaks to the almost 50% who don't
pay any taxes. Duh!

No, but we can and *should* cut their "refunds".

Me? I'm for a "per capita" tax in addition to the income tax. We've got
320 million people in this country. If everybody kicked in just $500 per
year, we would have $160 billion extra in the government coffers.

Now, if everyone kicked in an *extra* $5000, we'd almost cover the
deficit. I'll throw mine in the pot if the occupiers and everyone on
welfare does the same.

aw but the beauty of this position is that rymney wouldn't

One again, you show what a real idiot you are.

can't rebut my position so you resort to name calling.

Game over. I win

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:36:18 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


and that somehow changes the point I was trying to make?

It shows that you're stupid as a stump and that everything you say can be
chalked up to more mumblings of an moron.

I see. You can't win an discussion on point so you resort to name calling

But you *are* dumb as a stump. You've proved it here.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:39:09 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


and 100 senators. but in this case my fuzzy math error doesn't
change a thing

Sigh. Once again I take up the White Man's Burden.

how very white of you

There are not "and 100 senators." There are 436 members of the House
of Representatives and 100 members of the Senate.

The number I quoted, 536, includes 435 representatives elected by
various states, one non-voting member from D.C., and 100 senators,
two from each of the 50 states.

great. you've ryaned me with useless numbers that in no way change
the point I was trying to make

Oh, but the numbers I mentioned are more germane than you wish.

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," False in one, false in all.

Suppose you were trying to make the point that Paul Ryan does not possess
traditional American values. Suppose further that in trying to make that
claim, you mention he's really an alien from another planet and has "Soup is
Good Food" tattooed on his forehead.

Who would take you seriously?

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your argument, it is
prudent to be as accurate as possible.

I agree, accuracy is highly desirable, but it doesn't matter a wit that I got
the number of congresspeople wrong. in fact, since my number was high, my point
becomes even more relevant. A small group of legislators and they can't pass laws

It proves, as usual, that you have no idea what you're talking about.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:01:05 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:37:26 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:50:25 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Davej wrote:
On Aug 13, 2:31 pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

Well, they certainly can't give tax breaks to the almost 50% who don't
pay any taxes. Duh!

No, but we can and *should* cut their "refunds".

Me? I'm for a "per capita" tax in addition to the income tax. We've got
320 million people in this country. If everybody kicked in just $500 per
year, we would have $160 billion extra in the government coffers.

Now, if everyone kicked in an *extra* $5000, we'd almost cover the
deficit. I'll throw mine in the pot if the occupiers and everyone on
welfare does the same.

aw but the beauty of this position is that rymney wouldn't

One again, you show what a real idiot you are.

can't rebut my position so you resort to name calling.

No, just stating the facts.

Game over. I win

Wrong, as usual. You're a loser.

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:42:14 -0400, "Sherlock.Homes"
wrote:


A CNN poll this week found 63 percent believe Romney should release
more tax returns.

What's a CNN? I bet most people (myself included) would not even
understand his tax returns. Ask Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the
Treasury.

Romney has provided what is needed by the election commission. Sure
he can give more, but what is your point?

The election commission does not require the release of anything: tax
returns or college transcripts.

wrote:

I happen to be self employed and have had my own business that pays
all my bills for over ten years. As for me being a liberal, most of
my beliefs are the same ones as conservatives; I just don't like big
business because it has become too powerful in the past thirty years
and is affecting the political balance of power.

Past thirty years? Go back to Standard Oil in the 1920s. The railroads
before that. And so on.

It's the nature of the capitalistic system.

Live with it, work with it, or replace the system with one controlled by the
government.

Those are your only two choices.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:36:18 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It shows that you're stupid as a stump and that everything you say can be
chalked up to more mumblings of an moron.

I see. You can't win an discussion on point so you resort to name calling

You started this thread. Right out of the gate, name calling. What
was it exactly? Rymey? I pointed out then (first) about name
calling.

I give you one thing. You try to be a spin doctor, not a good one,
but you try really hard.

--

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," False in one, false in all.

Suppose you were trying to make the point that Paul Ryan does not
possess traditional American values. Suppose further that in trying
to make that claim, you mention he's really an alien from another
planet and has "Soup is Good Food" tattooed on his forehead.

Who would take you seriously?

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your
argument, it is prudent to be as accurate as possible.

I agree, accuracy is highly desirable, but it doesn't matter a wit
that I got the number of congresspeople wrong. in fact, since my
number was high, my point becomes even more relevant. A small group
of legislators and they can't pass laws

To me, and others, it matters a great deal that you got the number of
congress-critters wrong. It fatally wounds your entire argument. If you err
on small matters, it's not only likely, but probable, that your main
argument is likewise wrong. In other words, if you assert completely
unbelievable things of minor importance, you are probably wrong on your
central message.

From now on, when you put forth some poignant and heart-felt belief, you
will get the rejoinder: "Are you as sure about that as you were that there
were 700 members of Congress?"

What you SHOULD have done was respond: "Of course there are 535 members of
Congress. I can't imagine how I came up with such an absurd number. I
apologize for the mistake."

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:39:09 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your argument, it is
prudent to be as accurate as possible.

I agree, accuracy is highly desirable, but it doesn't matter a wit that I got
the number of congresspeople wrong. in fact, since my number was high, my point
becomes even more relevant. A small group of legislators and they can't pass laws

You go Spin Doctor...
--

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:12:09 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:42:14 -0400, "Sherlock.Homes"
wrote:


A CNN poll this week found 63 percent believe Romney should release
more tax returns.

What's a CNN? I bet most people (myself included) would not even
understand his tax returns. Ask Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the
Treasury.

Romney has provided what is needed by the election commission. Sure
he can give more, but what is your point?

The election commission does not require the release of anything: tax
returns or college transcripts.


Is a financial disclosure part of the documents given to EC?

My real point was he has provided one year of tax records and says he
will give another year. I guess this is for show-n-tell for the
press, yet the liberals slobber for more trying to find some nugget to
make a fit about.
--

In article ,
" wrote:


Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

Well, they certainly can't give tax breaks to the almost 50% who don't
pay any taxes. Duh!

No, but we can and *should* cut their "refunds".

Me? I'm for a "per capita" tax in addition to the income tax. We've
got 320 million people in this country. If everybody kicked in just
$500 per year, we would have $160 billion extra in the government
coffers.

Now, if everyone kicked in an *extra* $5000, we'd almost cover the
deficit. I'll throw mine in the pot if the occupiers and everyone on
welfare does the same.

aw but the beauty of this position is that rymney wouldn't

One again, you show what a real idiot you are.

can't rebut my position so you resort to name calling.

No, just stating the facts.


As did I


Game over. I win

Wrong, as usual. You're a loser.

aw, that hurts

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:39:09 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your argument, it
is
prudent to be as accurate as possible.

I agree, accuracy is highly desirable, but it doesn't matter a wit that I
got
the number of congresspeople wrong. in fact, since my number was high, my
point
becomes even more relevant. A small group of legislators and they can't pass
laws

You go Spin Doctor...
--

I'm practicing to be a part of the rymney clique

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," False in one, false in all.

Suppose you were trying to make the point that Paul Ryan does not
possess traditional American values. Suppose further that in trying
to make that claim, you mention he's really an alien from another
planet and has "Soup is Good Food" tattooed on his forehead.

Who would take you seriously?

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your
argument, it is prudent to be as accurate as possible.

I agree, accuracy is highly desirable, but it doesn't matter a wit
that I got the number of congresspeople wrong. in fact, since my
number was high, my point becomes even more relevant. A small group
of legislators and they can't pass laws

To me, and others, it matters a great deal that you got the number of
congress-critters wrong. It fatally wounds your entire argument. If you err
on small matters, it's not only likely, but probable, that your main
argument is likewise wrong. In other words, if you assert completely
unbelievable things of minor importance, you are probably wrong on your
central message.

From now on, when you put forth some poignant and heart-felt belief, you
will get the rejoinder: "Are you as sure about that as you were that there
were 700 members of Congress?"

What you SHOULD have done was respond: "Of course there are 535 members of
Congress. I can't imagine how I came up with such an absurd number. I
apologize for the mistake."

The number of members of Congress is irrelevant. It in no way changes the
validity of the point I was trying to make. In fact since there are fewer than I
said, it seems even more ludicrous that nothing gets done

In article ,
" wrote:

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your argument, it
is prudent to be as accurate as possible.

I agree, accuracy is highly desirable, but it doesn't matter a wit that I
got the number of congresspeople wrong. in fact, since my number was high,
my point becomes even more relevant. A small group of legislators and they
can't pass laws

It proves, as usual, that you have no idea what you're talking about.

not at all

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:36:18 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It shows that you're stupid as a stump and that everything you say can be
chalked up to more mumblings of an moron.

I see. You can't win an discussion on point so you resort to name calling

You started this thread. Right out of the gate, name calling. What
was it exactly? Rymey? I pointed out then (first) about name
calling.


It is common occurence now a days to call couples by cute or descriptive mash
ups of their name. I was just predicting what theirs would be.

But exactly what part of that is name calling?



I give you one thing. You try to be a spin doctor, not a good one,
but you try really hard.

--

If that were my goal here I wouldn't need to try hard

In article ,
" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:36:18 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


and that somehow changes the point I was trying to make?

It shows that you're stupid as a stump and that everything you say can be
chalked up to more mumblings of an moron.

I see. You can't win an discussion on point so you resort to name calling

But you *are* dumb as a stump. You've proved it here.

so you think of yourself as a stump?

Oren wrote:

The election commission does not require the release of anything: tax
returns or college transcripts.


Is a financial disclosure part of the documents given to EC?

No. The EC is tasked ONLY with monitoring the financing of a campaign. They
don't and can't require the candidates personal financial disclosure,
college transcripts, senior thesis papers, or proof of citizenship.


My real point was he has provided one year of tax records and says he
will give another year. I guess this is for show-n-tell for the
press, yet the liberals slobber for more trying to find some nugget to
make a fit about.

Well, yeah. According to those who were aware, four years ago Romney was
being considered as a VP pick. In furtherance of this process, Romeny
provided 28 years of tax returns to the McCain campaign.

'Course Romey lost out to Sarah Palin, but I'm sure his tax records didn't
enter into the decision. No sir, not a bit.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:12:09 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:42:14 -0400, "Sherlock.Homes"
wrote:


A CNN poll this week found 63 percent believe Romney should release
more tax returns.

What's a CNN? I bet most people (myself included) would not even
understand his tax returns. Ask Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the
Treasury.

Romney has provided what is needed by the election commission. Sure
he can give more, but what is your point?

The election commission does not require the release of anything: tax
returns or college transcripts.

Or birth certificate, even.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:16:23 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

I happen to be self employed and have had my own business that pays
all my bills for over ten years. As for me being a liberal, most of
my beliefs are the same ones as conservatives; I just don't like big
business because it has become too powerful in the past thirty years
and is affecting the political balance of power.

Past thirty years? Go back to Standard Oil in the 1920s. The railroads
before that. And so on.

It's the nature of the capitalistic system.

Live with it, work with it, or replace the system with one controlled by the
government.

Those are your only two choices.

Work with human nature or against it. Those are your only two choices.
Working against it gets pretty ugly.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:41:59 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:36:18 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


and that somehow changes the point I was trying to make?

It shows that you're stupid as a stump and that everything you say can be
chalked up to more mumblings of an moron.

I see. You can't win an discussion on point so you resort to name calling

But you *are* dumb as a stump. You've proved it here.

so you think of yourself as a stump?

Again, you prove your single-digit IQ. You're consistent, at least.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:39:43 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your argument, it
is prudent to be as accurate as possible.

I agree, accuracy is highly desirable, but it doesn't matter a wit that I
got the number of congresspeople wrong. in fact, since my number was high,
my point becomes even more relevant. A small group of legislators and they
can't pass laws

It proves, as usual, that you have no idea what you're talking about.

not at all

You really are stupid enough to believe that. I'll bet you think there are 57
states, too.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:30:09 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.


That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

Well, they certainly can't give tax breaks to the almost 50% who don't
pay any taxes. Duh!

No, but we can and *should* cut their "refunds".

Me? I'm for a "per capita" tax in addition to the income tax. We've
got 320 million people in this country. If everybody kicked in just
$500 per year, we would have $160 billion extra in the government
coffers.

Now, if everyone kicked in an *extra* $5000, we'd almost cover the
deficit. I'll throw mine in the pot if the occupiers and everyone on
welfare does the same.

aw but the beauty of this position is that rymney wouldn't

One again, you show what a real idiot you are.

can't rebut my position so you resort to name calling.

No, just stating the facts.


As did I

"700 Congressmen"? Yeah, right.

Game over. I win

Wrong, as usual. You're a loser.

aw, that hurts

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings but unlike your school, we can't all be
winners.

On 8/14/2012 7:29 AM, HeyBub wrote:

great. you've ryaned me with useless numbers that in no way change
the point I was trying to make

Oh, but the numbers I mentioned are more germane than you wish.

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," False in one, false in all.

So when you wrote on Tuesday Aug 14th at 10:52 that "Romeny (sic)
provided 28 years of tax returns" when the real number is 23*, you were
proving that everything you write is false. When you act like a
blowhard mate, you make it so damn easy to knock the wind out of your
sails. Zing! Payback is a real bitch.

Suppose you were trying to make the point that Paul Ryan does not possess
traditional American values. Suppose further that in trying to make that
claim, you mention he's really an alien from another planet and has "Soup is
Good Food" tattooed on his forehead.

Who would take you seriously?

Look around and ask yourself you takes YOU seriously when you lecture
people not to do exactly what you do?

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your argument, it is
prudent to be as accurate as possible.

Great advice. Now if you would only practice what you preach!

For the record a LOT more than 536 or 700 people work in Congress:

In the year 2000, there were approximately 11,692 personal staff, 2,492
committee staff, 274 leadership staff, 5,034 institutional staff, and
3,500 GAO employees, 747 CRS employees, and 232 CBO employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff

--
Sherlock

*
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...s-tax-returns/

On 8/14/2012 7:23 PM, HeyBub wrote:

From now on, when you put forth some poignant and heart-felt belief, you
will get the rejoinder: "Are you as sure about that as you were that there
were 700 members of Congress?"

And he can remind you that Mitt ROMNEY gave the McCain people 23 years
of returns, not the 28 you claimed. If you are trying to prove you can
be as small-minded and hypocritical as our elected officials then I say
"Mission Accomplished!" Heckuva job, Bubby!

--
Sherlock

Sherlock.Homes wrote:
On 8/14/2012 7:23 PM, HeyBub wrote:

From now on, when you put forth some poignant and heart-felt
belief, you will get the rejoinder: "Are you as sure about that as
you were that there were 700 members of Congress?"

And he can remind you that Mitt ROMNEY gave the McCain people 23 years
of returns, not the 28 you claimed. If you are trying to prove you
can be as small-minded and hypocritical as our elected officials then
I say "Mission Accomplished!" Heckuva job, Bubby!

You are absolutely correct. The number was 23, not the 28 I claimed.

I ****ed up.

Big time.

I extend my heartfelt apologies to all who were taken in by my grievous
error. I will now sit in a corner for an hour and feel shame.

P.S.
Twenty-three, 28, -2, 140. The actual number doesn't detract one whit from
the central fact.

Sherlock.Homes wrote:
On 8/14/2012 7:29 AM, HeyBub wrote:

great. you've ryaned me with useless numbers that in no way change
the point I was trying to make

Oh, but the numbers I mentioned are more germane than you wish.

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," False in one, false in all.

So when you wrote on Tuesday Aug 14th at 10:52 that "Romeny (sic)
provided 28 years of tax returns" when the real number is 23*, you
were proving that everything you write is false. When you act like a
blowhard mate, you make it so damn easy to knock the wind out of your
sails. Zing! Payback is a real bitch.

Suppose you were trying to make the point that Paul Ryan does not
possess traditional American values. Suppose further that in trying
to make that claim, you mention he's really an alien from another
planet and has "Soup is Good Food" tattooed on his forehead.

Who would take you seriously?

Look around and ask yourself you takes YOU seriously when you lecture
people not to do exactly what you do?

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your
argument, it is prudent to be as accurate as possible.

Great advice. Now if you would only practice what you preach!

For the record a LOT more than 536 or 700 people work in Congress:

In the year 2000, there were approximately 11,692 personal staff,
2,492 committee staff, 274 leadership staff, 5,034 institutional
staff, and 3,500 GAO employees, 747 CRS employees, and 232 CBO
employees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff

I made a typographical error, for which I apologized.

I know there are a lot more people who work in the legislative branch than
just the members of Congress: Once upon a time I was an Administrative
Assistant to a U.S. Senator. There are also more entities in the legislative
branch than were part of your tabulation. The Library of Congress, Architect
of the Capitol, the US Botanic Garden, and more. But your point is well
taken.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Me? I'm for a "per capita" tax in addition to the income tax. We've
got 320 million people in this country. If everybody kicked in just
$500 per year, we would have $160 billion extra in the government
coffers.

Now, if everyone kicked in an *extra* $5000, we'd almost cover the
deficit. I'll throw mine in the pot if the occupiers and everyone on
welfare does the same.

What about the disadvantaged person who doesn't HAVE $5,000?

I've thought about that.

They could contribute a kidney.

A kidney would replace a dialysis machine whose cost is in the neighborhood,
I guess, of $100,000.

Presto! Taxes paid for twenty years!

Now during those twenty years, the disadvantaged person could contribute one
unit of blood platelets per month for a government credit of $100 per unit.
(I call this my "federal withdrawing plan"). At the end of twenty years
(after the kidney), they would have accumulated an additional 4 years worth
of credits.

At the end of these four years, if the person is still incapable of
ponying-up the required $5,000, they could contribute a cornea.

Now this time scale gets compressed if the subject has, say, four children
under the age of six. I'm still working on that situation.

On Aug 15, 12:45*am, "
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:12:09 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:42:14 -0400, "Sherlock.Homes"
wrote:

A CNN poll this week found 63 percent believe Romney should release
more tax returns.

What's a CNN? *I bet most people (myself included) would not even
understand his tax returns. *Ask Timothy Geithner, *Secretary of the
Treasury.

Romney has provided what is needed by the election commission. *Sure
he can give more, but what is your point?

The election commission does not require the release of anything: tax
returns or college transcripts.

Or birth certificate, even.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While the election commission does not have requirements,
you would think the parties would have requirements that
anyone entering their primary races would have to disclose
X years of taxes. I would think 5 years would be enough.
That would take care of most of this problem upfront.
This would benefit the parties by getting it over with early,
rather than a candidate winning the nomination and then
having a potential unknown problem linger on.

On Aug 15, 3:44*am, "Sherlock.Homes"
wrote:
For the record a LOT more than 536 or 700 people work in Congress


Rather late to try to be spinning that as a defense, isn't
it? If that were what you meant, then it would have been
your first reply back when it was pointed out that there are
not 700 members in Congress. That you only bring it
up now shows that:

A - You really don't have a clue as to the number of
members of Congress

B - You're not even very bright at trying to weasel out of it.

Given the above, I agree with all the others that it shows
that you're pontificating on big things while being clueless
about the most basic facts.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:05:15 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 15, 12:45*am, "
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:12:09 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:42:14 -0400, "Sherlock.Homes"
wrote:

A CNN poll this week found 63 percent believe Romney should release
more tax returns.

What's a CNN? *I bet most people (myself included) would not even
understand his tax returns. *Ask Timothy Geithner, *Secretary of the
Treasury.

Romney has provided what is needed by the election commission. *Sure
he can give more, but what is your point?

The election commission does not require the release of anything: tax
returns or college transcripts.

Or birth certificate, even.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While the election commission does not have requirements,
you would think the parties would have requirements that
anyone entering their primary races would have to disclose
X years of taxes.

Disclose to whom? Public? Why?

I would think 5 years would be enough.
That would take care of most of this problem upfront.

No it wouldn't. It's a manufactured concern to score political points.
Nothing more.

This would benefit the parties by getting it over with early,
rather than a candidate winning the nomination and then
having a potential unknown problem linger on.

What problem? A problem like Lil' Timmy?

On Aug 14, 3:35*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Davej
wrote:

On Aug 13, 2:31*pm, "
wrote:

Congress ... has an approval rating of 15%.

That is the current Tea Party dominated congress. The pack of morons
who want to cut the deficit by giving more tax breaks to the 1%.

You seem to think Congress had a higher approval rating before 2010!

Just on time- Gallup asks again. * *Congress would love to have their
15% rating they enjoyed a couple months ago. * They just tied their
all time low 10%. * First set in Feb 2012.

They did get as low as 14 in '08-- But 20% was only reached twice
before '79 & '92.

I'm pretty sure they suck worse now than they ever have. [And I don't
blame the tea party for all of it-- the way-left sucks just as bad--
there's too many on both sides who put party before country]

Jim

I don't see how the Tea Party members can be blamed
for the low approval rating. The approval rating for Congress
has been low for a long time. And there are only 38 Tea Party
members so they do not "dominate" Congress. In fact, if
people had a poor view of the Tea Party, they would not
have been elected to begin with or continue to win elections,
eg Texas, today.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:35:38 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

You haven't got me to understand anything you've brought up.

I never expected that you would, but thank you for admitting it

I think for myself, not by some liberal concocted view of facts.
--

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:37:07 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

I'm practicing to be a part of the rymney clique

You would be a failure, then. People can see right through your
liberal views. You do try to spin things.
--

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:41:33 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

....

It is common occurence now a days to call couples by cute or descriptive mash
ups of their name. I was just predicting what theirs would be.


You must live in California. Something invented by the far left
liberals. Is there something in the water out there on the left
coast?
--

WELL WITH CONGRESSES APPROVAL RATING ABOUT 10 percent, why should anyone in congress ant to run for president?

and romney should of released 10 years of tax records or not run.

John Edwards had lots of reasons not to run including a mistress with a child and screwing around while his wife had terminal cancer.

people who run for office sometimes run even when they have a LOT to lose.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

What about the disadvantaged person who doesn't HAVE $5,000?

I've thought about that.

They could contribute a kidney.

I would have suggested indenture.

Regrettably, the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude. Except for
conscription. And prison chain gangs. And mandatory apprenticeship prior to
licensing for many trades. And a few other things. Your idea, while a good
one, can't legally be implemented. Nope. Not even.


Now this time scale gets compressed if the subject has, say, four
children under the age of six. I'm still working on that situation.

They have kidneys and corneas, too.

Think of the children! You are SO cruel!

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:01:30 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

What about the disadvantaged person who doesn't HAVE $5,000?

I've thought about that.

They could contribute a kidney.

I would have suggested indenture.

Regrettably, the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude. Except for
conscription. And prison chain gangs. And mandatory apprenticeship prior to
licensing for many trades. And a few other things. Your idea, while a good
one, can't legally be implemented. Nope. Not even.

Come on, you're not thinking outside the box! Just call it a "tax".

Now this time scale gets compressed if the subject has, say, four
children under the age of six. I'm still working on that situation.

They have kidneys and corneas, too.

Think of the children! You are SO cruel!

Well, I suppose that, between them, their parents have four kidneys and four
corneas.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:01:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I would have suggested indenture.

Regrettably, the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude. Except for
conscription. And prison chain gangs. And mandatory apprenticeship prior to
licensing for many trades. And a few other things. Your idea, while a good
one, can't legally be implemented. Nope. Not even.

I'm up for a lesson. Where does the Constitution prohibit slavery?
--

Oren wrote in
:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:01:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I would have suggested indenture.

Regrettably, the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude. Except
for conscription. And prison chain gangs. And mandatory apprenticeship
prior to licensing for many trades. And a few other things. Your idea,
while a good one, can't legally be implemented. Nope. Not even.

I'm up for a lesson. Where does the Constitution prohibit slavery?

Doesn't an amendment update/change a document? I had to lookit up, but
it seems to be the 13th amendment that this. A few years back. So yes
the Constitution prohibits slavery:
from wikipedia:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.[2]

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid