|
(OT) army takes care of its own?
|
They did not say that the trucks were distroyed. Just dropped off at the
wrong bases with no ID which screwed up the paper work. If the bean counters had this much control over the fighting troops 35 years ago my supply sargent would have spent most of his life in Levenworth. The neo-cons nice little war plans have gone to hell in a handbasket and costing a lot more than anticipated so now they want to screw the troops by pinching pennys. I wonder if Rumsfeld has the nerve to have one of those yellow support our troops ribbons on his car. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com "Gunner" wrote in message ... On 13 Dec 2004 06:49:00 -0800, wrote: But once the reservists were done with the assignment, they should have sought out the units the vehicles belonged to, he said. "Instead of taking the trucks back to their rightful owners, the first thing was erasing the identity marks and dumping them off at bases," Wicker said. "They destroyed it. They did the enemy's job. ... Those trucks could be used for other units." I think this may be the operative part...... Gunner "To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas |
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:50:45 -0500, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote: They did not say that the trucks were distroyed. Just dropped off at the wrong bases with no ID which screwed up the paper work. If the bean counters had this much control over the fighting troops 35 years ago my supply sargent would have spent most of his life in Levenworth. The neo-cons nice little war plans have gone to hell in a handbasket and costing a lot more than anticipated so now they want to screw the troops by pinching pennys. I wonder if Rumsfeld has the nerve to have one of those yellow support our troops ribbons on his car. I wonder if it would offset your **** the Troops sticker? Gunner "To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Money is a bit tight. Unlike when Clinton was pres? Or just much worse? -- Cliff |
This again validates the ancient maxim =AB be careful what you wish for
as you might get it. =BB A continual chant of the conservatives (including myself) was that government should be run more like business. What I had not counted on was the change in American business from a high-volume, high value added, long dollar mindset to denominator management and the buy-ruin-sell MBA mentality. Blaming the hourly employees for the failure of ill conceived and grossly under funded initiatives is unfortunately typical of current American management, and where there are no more hourly employees to blame, the educational system can always be held responsible. It is never the responsibility of the suits. Who supports our troops more? The people that want to shut down these foreign adventures, bring our troops home, possibly for deployment on our borders, or those who are actively planning to expand the war to Iran, while providing inadequate and defective materiel (not only lack of armor, but soft M16 barrels that shoot-out in as few as 500 rounds), insufficient tactical and strategic planning and who are actively engaging in war profiteering? As high as the up-front cost of these disasters, debacles, and SNAFUs are to the front-line troops, the long-term cost to the Republic will be far higher. We cannot outsource the defense of the country. |
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth
wrote: In article , Cliff wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner wrote: Money is a bit tight. Unlike when Clinton was pres? Or just much worse? Taxes are lower than when Klinton was in office. My Social Security is taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton. Don't worry. Herr shrubbie plans to eliminate it altogether, right? Or at least go into AT LEAST another US$ (who knows what they will be worth at this rate) 2,000,000,000,000 in debt ASAP rather than perhaps increasing taxes by 0.5% to keep it working long past 2052 ... See "Inventing A Crisis": http://www.pkarchive.org/column/120704.html |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth
wrote: My Social Security is taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton. Do we have yet another entry for the idiot of the month prize? Or just another lying winger or fundie or gunnut? In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. Guess who? Ronnie Raygun & Bush ...... NOT Clinton. WHY are you always bashing republicans? HTH -- Cliff |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:16:44 -0500, Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth wrote: My Social Security is taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton. Do we have yet another entry for the idiot of the month prize? Or just another lying winger or fundie or gunnut? In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. Guess who? Ronnie Raygun & Bush ...... NOT Clinton. WHY are you always bashing republicans? HTH That would be a democratic majority in congress, wouldn't it. Russ |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:29:25 GMT, Russ wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:16:44 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth wrote: My Social Security is taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton. Do we have yet another entry for the idiot of the month prize? Or just another lying winger or fundie or gunnut? In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. Guess who? Ronnie Raygun & Bush ...... NOT Clinton. WHY are you always bashing republicans? HTH That would be a democratic majority in congress, wouldn't it. Would it? Who had veto power? Was it, as claimed, Clinton? Who loves deficits and has never vetoed anything AFAIK? BTW, Read the link ....... and think a bit about this new SCAM. -- Cliff |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:29:25 GMT, Russ wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:16:44 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth wrote: My Social Security is taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton. Do we have yet another entry for the idiot of the month prize? Or just another lying winger or fundie or gunnut? In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. Guess who? Ronnie Raygun & Bush ...... NOT Clinton. WHY are you always bashing republicans? HTH That would be a democratic majority in congress, wouldn't it. Russ Indeed it would. The Republicans only gained control of One house, in 1994 Gunner "If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're around." "Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right before demode` (out of fashion). -Buddy Jordan 2001 |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:30:10 GMT, Gunner
wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:29:25 GMT, Russ wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:16:44 -0500, Cliff wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth wrote: My Social Security is taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton. Do we have yet another entry for the idiot of the month prize? Or just another lying winger or fundie or gunnut? In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. Guess who? Ronnie Raygun & Bush ...... NOT Clinton. WHY are you always bashing republicans? HTH That would be a democratic majority in congress, wouldn't it. Russ Indeed it would. The Republicans only gained control of One house, in 1994 Was that before or after Ronnie Raygun & Bush got their bill passed? Before or after they ran up their huge deficits? [ President Ronald Reagan appointed a blue-ribbon panel, known as the Greenspan Commission, to study the financing issues and make recommendations for legislative changes. The final bill, signed into law in 1983, made numerous changes in the Social Security and Medicare programs, including the taxation of Social Security benefits; ] Here's the proud photo op Ronald Reagan took of him signing the bill into law: (about 1/3 down) http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/briefhistory.html just before a pictiure of Clinton signing the bill that allowed Seniors to keep working, if they so desired G. HTH -- Cliff |
"TheTruth" wrote in message
news:xzKvd.33643$ve.9250@fed1read06... In article , Cliff wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner wrote: Money is a bit tight. Unlike when Clinton was pres? Or just much worse? Taxes are lower than when Klinton was in office. My Social Security is taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton. You are feeding at the welfare trough, skimming 7+% of my income to do so, and you are bitching about having to pay income taxes? That's funny. |
Greetings and Salutations.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:17:39 GMT, "jeff" wrote: "TheTruth" wrote in message news:xzKvd.33643$ve.9250@fed1read06... In article , Cliff wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner wrote: Money is a bit tight. Unlike when Clinton was pres? Or just much worse? Taxes are lower than when Klinton was in office. My Social Security is taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton. You are feeding at the welfare trough, skimming 7+% of my income to do so, and you are bitching about having to pay income taxes? That's funny. The fact of the matter is that SS takes closer to 15%. Your direct contribution is 7+%. Your employer has to match that...which is cash you never see. Of course, those of us that are self-employed get to pay both sides of that...so we DO see the entire amount. I don't know what the answer is...short of a combination approach where for a given period of time, say, 20 years, the worker not only pays the 14% or so SS tax, to keep the folks that have paid into the system for the folks in the past, AND has to make a similar contribution to their OWN account for the future. of course, if the government simply lifted the current cap on earnings taxed by SS, that would help a lot to get a bunch more cash into the system...and would cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the high-income folks. Alternatively, I suppose that we could simply say that as of an arbitrary date, no more folks would get added to the system... and eventually, all the folks getting social security would die off, and relieve us of the problem. There might be some minor discomfort and inconvenience among the folks that should be getting their cut of the pie, but, who fall after the cut-off date. I am sure, though that they have children, or churches, or some other support group that will keep them from freezing to death under a bridge, or pestering folks on the street, asking for hand-outs. Regards Dave Mundt |
|
|
|
In article , Dave Mundt says...
Alternatively, I suppose that we could simply say that as of an arbitrary date, no more folks would get added to the system... and eventually, all the folks getting social security would die off, and relieve us of the problem. There might be some minor discomfort and inconvenience among the folks that should be getting their cut of the pie, but, who fall after the cut-off date. Another approach would be to simply say, "it's stopping right now." The SS taxes go away, and so do the disbursments. There's going to be a large dislocation when the system stops, why drag it out? Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:27:35 GMT, Strabo
wrote: In (OT) army takes care of its own? on Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, by TheTruth, we read: In article , Cliff wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner wrote: Money is a bit tight. Unlike when Clinton was pres? Or just much worse? Taxes are lower than when Klinton was in office. My Social Security is taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton. And spending is the highest in the history of the republic. Not even close. It was much higher during WW2, when adjusted for inflation. Gunner "Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where." Scipio |
Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:27:35 GMT, Strabo wrote: And spending is the highest in the history of the republic. Not even close. It was much higher during WW2, when adjusted for inflation. How much higher? WW2 was a period of total war wasn't it? |
Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:56:41 GMT, Thomas Nulla wrote: WW2 was a period of total war wasn't it? So the Cliffnoid is admitting he lied in his original claim. What has Gunner got against Strabo? Gunner wrote: On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:27:35 GMT, Strabo wrote: And spending is the highest in the history of the republic. Not even close. It was much higher during WW2, when adjusted for inflation. |
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:19:16 GMT, Thomas Nulla
wrote: Interesting Only if you didn't _already_ understand that when the government spends more than it receives, America goes deeper in debt. Now that I've made it all clear, perhaps you can understand why I am a fiscal conservative and you are a borrow-and-spend wastrel. It's fine with Gunner as long as he & "his" get their welfare benefits. After all, who is going to pay off the deficit? That's free welfore money for Herr shrubbie & the neocons to spend (NOT Gunner), is it not? -- Cliff |
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:17:23 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Afterall, there is a war on. Where? Why? Who started it? Why? How many killed so far? Where? Why? How long do you hope to keep it going? Why? You liked it. Are you paying for it? Did you even join? -- Cliff |
"Guido" wrote in message ... Gunner wrote: On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:56:41 GMT, Thomas Nulla wrote: WW2 was a period of total war wasn't it? So the Cliffnoid is admitting he lied in his original claim. What has Gunner got against Strabo? He doesn't agree with Goofer's global socialist horse****. |
Mysterion wrote:
"Guido" wrote in message ... Gunner wrote: On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:56:41 GMT, Thomas Nulla wrote: WW2 was a period of total war wasn't it? So the Cliffnoid is admitting he lied in his original claim. What has Gunner got against Strabo? He doesn't agree with Goofer's global socialist horse****. Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets regularly accused of spinning and twisting too. |
"Guido" wrote in message ... Mysterion wrote: "Guido" wrote in message ... Gunner wrote: On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:56:41 GMT, Thomas Nulla wrote: WW2 was a period of total war wasn't it? So the Cliffnoid is admitting he lied in his original claim. What has Gunner got against Strabo? He doesn't agree with Goofer's global socialist horse****. Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets regularly accused of spinning and twisting too. Standard Goofer tactic. He accuses you of twisting his words while twisting yours and makes inferences like "Since all dogs have four legs, if it has four legs it must be a dog". When he runs out of ammo in a battle of wits - it never takes very long - he makes thinly veiled death threats, killfiles the opposition and claims victory. He's a hypocritical jackass with serious problems in the area of logic. |
Mysterion wrote:
"Guido" wrote in message ... Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets regularly accused of spinning and twisting too. Standard Goofer tactic. He accuses you of twisting his words while twisting yours and makes inferences like "Since all dogs have four legs, if it has four legs it must be a dog". When he runs out of ammo in a battle of wits - it never takes very long - he makes thinly veiled death threats, killfiles the opposition and claims victory. He's a hypocritical jackass with serious problems in the area of logic. I see that he's been nominated by AUK for the "Bag of Coal - for the most hate-filled and censorious k00k of the year". He has strong opposition though. |
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:54:27 +0000, Guido wrote:
Mysterion wrote: "Guido" wrote in message ... Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets regularly accused of spinning and twisting too. Standard Goofer tactic. He accuses you of twisting his words while twisting yours and makes inferences like "Since all dogs have four legs, if it has four legs it must be a dog". When he runs out of ammo in a battle of wits - it never takes very long - he makes thinly veiled death threats, killfiles the opposition and claims victory. He's a hypocritical jackass with serious problems in the area of logic. I see that he's been nominated by AUK for the "Bag of Coal - for the most hate-filled and censorious k00k of the year". He has strong opposition though. The option choice seems to be "Gunner & Strider of misc.survivalism" which they seem to consider to be one choice "(vote for one candidate)". http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...f657bd65 ca1f I'm proud of the lads .... they have made such rapid progress from being such total unknowns only a short time ago ....... -- Cliff |
In article ,
Cliff wrote: On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:54:27 +0000, Guido wrote: Mysterion wrote: "Guido" wrote in message ... Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets regularly accused of spinning and twisting too. Standard Goofer tactic. He accuses you of twisting his words while twisting yours and makes inferences like "Since all dogs have four legs, if it has four legs it must be a dog". When he runs out of ammo in a battle of wits - it never takes very long - he makes thinly veiled death threats, killfiles the opposition and claims victory. He's a hypocritical jackass with serious problems in the area of logic. I see that he's been nominated by AUK for the "Bag of Coal - for the most hate-filled and censorious k00k of the year". He has strong opposition though. The option choice seems to be "Gunner & Strider of misc.survivalism" which they seem to consider to be one choice "(vote for one candidate)". http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...thread/fc1bac3 9d955763f/dd30f657bd65ca1f?q=auk+gunner+strider+%22Bag+of+Co al%22&_done=%2Fgro ups%3Fq%3Dauk+gunner+strider+%22Bag+of+Coal%22%26s tart%3D0%26scoring%3Dd%26num %3D100%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26lr%3D%26as_drrb%3Dq%26as_qdr%3Dw%26as_min d%3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_miny%3D1981%26as_maxd%3D 20%26as_maxm%3D12%26as_maxy% 3D2004%26safe%3Doff%26filter%3D0%26&_doneTitle=Bac k+to+Search&&d#dd30f657bd65c a1f I'm proud of the lads .... they have made such rapid progress from being such total unknowns only a short time ago ....... i cant tell for sure who h reader was before last month maybe the wanderer or milky way arf meow arf cthulu loves you he loves the little children with ketchup please |
"Cliff" wrote in message ... On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:54:27 +0000, Guido wrote: Mysterion wrote: "Guido" wrote in message ... Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets regularly accused of spinning and twisting too. Standard Goofer tactic. He accuses you of twisting his words while twisting yours and makes inferences like "Since all dogs have four legs, if it has four legs it must be a dog". When he runs out of ammo in a battle of wits - it never takes very long - he makes thinly veiled death threats, killfiles the opposition and claims victory. He's a hypocritical jackass with serious problems in the area of logic. I see that he's been nominated by AUK for the "Bag of Coal - for the most hate-filled and censorious k00k of the year". He has strong opposition though. The option choice seems to be "Gunner & Strider of misc.survivalism" which they seem to consider to be one choice "(vote for one candidate)". During the Klintoon administration they were actually individuals who occasionally spoke in favor of freedom. Odd how dreams of a socialist empire and a flip of the electoral coin can replace "Live Free or Die" with "The State is God - All Hail the State". |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter