A nice piece on uncle Hugo and all of his "good".
Hey Sean Penn F*ck You! maybe you could run for the new prez in Venezuela!
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/05/3268749/the-plundering-legacy-of-hugo.html
TheChardo wrote:
memBrain wrote:
Voice of Reason wrote:
Yay! I just saw the news, Hugo Chavez is dead! I hope the socialist POS rots in hell.
Sadly, I'm certain he is.
He was a good man....Helped the poor. Like Christ.
Hugo Chavez was targeted by amnesty international as a dictator, who had his death squads k**l anyone who opposed his rule, and as someone who abused the civil rights of his own people. That doesnt sound like a "good man" to me.
Just because our biggest c****e actor said he was a good guy, doesn't mean its true. Just look at Dennis Rodman, now.
TheChardo wrote:
oilfieldDave wrote:
TheChardo wrote:
oilfieldDave wrote:
Spirit of 76 wrote:
The NY Times, now there's a good dependable source of information....NOT! Do I have to google their "journalistic faux pas" or will you admit their writers have done bald face lying? Chardo, you only like statistics that confirm what your subjective biases are. For every statistic you quote, I can show you a statistic that disproves it. You know, it's really true that our democratic form of gov't. only reflects our society. I've been in discussion groups on fb , with acquaintences, and now on this forum and the patterns are always the same. Everybody thinks they are right and no one wants to talk in agreeable terms. It's like we all want to prove the other one wrong and there's no sense of compromise.....JUST LIKE OUR GOV'T. Can we get agreement that the Democrats, in general, are liberal and believe that a bigger gov't. is a better gov't? I think it is harder to call the GOP conservative because most true Conservatives have left the GOP for the Tea Party. I think it's fair to call the GOP moderates, they feel strongly both ways (which is why they keep losing, they have no principles). The Tea Party is the conservative party that believes less gov't. is better gov't. Hopefully, it becomes apparent that we need a leader that can coalesce all three factions (liberal, moderate and conservative). The problem is that each candidate puts forth the party line and then everyone starts butting heads. For once I would like to hear a candidate or an elected politician say "Ya' know, I see good points in all three approaches to governing. Whaddaya' say we start figuring out where we need more government and where we need less government and where we need a more moderate approach?" That to me is what we are lacking: a p**********l and/or congressional leader that can do that. The last time I remember anyone even resembling that was JFK and he got assassinated, maybe because of it. So, boys and girls, let's put our six-shooters away and talk about what areas of our society need more, or less or more moderate amounts of gov't. control.
For starters, what areas of society need more governmental control? I will suggest more governmental control over monopolistic businesses like utilities and energy (gas for example)
What areas need less gov't. interference? I say "Taxation". What's so bad about a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings? Or a consumer tax where we only pay taxes on what we buy?
What areas need a moderation of less and more gov't? That's a tough one for me because I think of this as a lukewarm, kinda milk-toast sort of thing. Maybe someone smarter than me can show where this approach can be utilized.
Hope we can turn this discussion into something more edifying and constructive. I confess I've done my share of ridiculing and placing blame and you all have my apologies.
The NY Times, now there's a good dependable source... (
show quote)
I have to agree fully. We can all use some civility.
As far as less government, I would say in everything except our country's defense, immigration control, and food. The rest should be private enterprise.
I also think we need to get rid of the e*******l college, use only the popular v**e. Plus, it would be good if to v**e, one cant be on welfare, SS, or any other government supported program as their only income source because that would be a conflict of interest. Make all representatives actually live in the place they represent, with congress only getting together 4 times a year for 1 month each time. What they don't get done can wait until next time. This would make it a lot harder for lobbyist companies to pay off our reps, and for the reps themselves to stall.
I also agree with the flat tax, which would eliminate the need for the IRS, saving billions a year, and making everyone get a foot in the game, which means they would actually v**e based on having to pay rather than just getting free stuff.
The flat national sales tax would be OK, as long as they didn't exempt anything. This would also make everyone join the team that pays, eliminating the people that just get free stuff without any type of paying.
quote=Spirit of 76 The NY Times, now there's a go... (
show quote)
Dave, you said As far as less government, I would say in everything except our country's defense, immigration control, and food. The rest should be private enterprise. Really Dave
what about law enforcement and prisons
..private for profit? We already have way to many people locked up...shall we provide a monetary incentive to incarcerate even more? How about environmental protection? In a few short years well be chocking on smog like Mexico city, drinking untreated sewage and watching the dead fish float downstream. How about education
naaaw, we dont need any standards there. Leave that to the private sector and the churches? Cant do .As per Brown V. Board of Education: All kids living in the United States have the right to a free public education. And the Constitution requires that all kids be given equal educational opportunity no matter what their race, ethnic background, religion, or sex, or whether they are rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen. What do you mean by food Govt. control of the food supply
isnt that Marxism. LOL.
This flat tax thing is something that I find particularly disturbing given the income disparity that we have in this country. Youre saying that a family of, say 4 earning perhaps 50K a year should pay the same a someone earning $2M. ?? Think about it. That family of 4 is already struggling. If they pay 10%, with no deductions or credits-which is the way it would be if we chucked the IRS like one of you guys suggested-they would pay $5,000. That other family would pay 200K leaving them with an income of 1.8M
.think that would put any kind of a dent in their lifestyle??Ill support a flat tax when we have a flat income
but that too would be Marxism.
I also have to take exception to the idea that people on assistance should not v**e. How undemocratic can you get. Conflict of interest. I receive social security and a GOVERNMENT pension. Should I not be allowed to v**e? How about barring CEOs from v****g. I think you can say that theyre a special interest. Common Guys, lets put some constructive thought into this.
quote=oilfieldDave quote=Spirit of 76 The NY Tim... (
show quote)
Chardo-
Yeah, privatize the cops, and prisons. Altho, cops could be domestic defense.............we already have many private run prisons, which work just as good as the gummitt run ones.
Environmental control is already in the hands of the wacko's. Making it public wacko's will change nothing. We would still have the supreme court to make the ultimate laws.........
All education should be private run, and cant be any worse than the public system we have now. Eliminate all college sports and non education programs that are a drain on the annual budget. (Unless they are funded solely by the participants and the fans) This would keep them from blowing $millions, and then raising tuition to cover it. This would then allow most to attend any school, as they would no longer cost $100K per year to cover the sports, drama, etc.
By food I mean inspection. Not distribution. I think you knew that, tho.
Yes, i think everyone should have skin in the game. Flat tax of say 10% means a family making $50K pays $5K, while family making $250K pays $25K, or one making $1000K pays $100K. Its the most fair, which should appeal to the party of fairness............your team!
It is a massive conflict of interest to have people that spend their lives on the backs of others being allowed to v**e to continue this sorry practice. Of course, your team wants to give everyone the same things that those who work, and buy the stuff, get. I disagree with rewarding laziness.
Social security should only pay out what a person put in. NO MORE! You, and everyone else are being over paid to garner v**es. Its total BS!
quote=TheChardo quote=oilfieldDave quote=Spirit... (
show quote)
You're a tough case Dave!! A strange sense of what's fair.
quote=oilfieldDave quote=TheChardo quote=oilfie... (
show quote)
Why, because i think people should only get what THEY pay for? I'd say that means I'm not a c*******t.
TheChardo wrote:
oilfieldDave wrote:
Spirit of 76 wrote:
The NY Times, now there's a good dependable source of information....NOT! Do I have to google their "journalistic faux pas" or will you admit their writers have done bald face lying? Chardo, you only like statistics that confirm what your subjective biases are. For every statistic you quote, I can show you a statistic that disproves it. You know, it's really true that our democratic form of gov't. only reflects our society. I've been in discussion groups on fb , with acquaintences, and now on this forum and the patterns are always the same. Everybody thinks they are right and no one wants to talk in agreeable terms. It's like we all want to prove the other one wrong and there's no sense of compromise.....JUST LIKE OUR GOV'T. Can we get agreement that the Democrats, in general, are liberal and believe that a bigger gov't. is a better gov't? I think it is harder to call the GOP conservative because most true Conservatives have left the GOP for the Tea Party. I think it's fair to call the GOP moderates, they feel strongly both ways (which is why they keep losing, they have no principles). The Tea Party is the conservative party that believes less gov't. is better gov't. Hopefully, it becomes apparent that we need a leader that can coalesce all three factions (liberal, moderate and conservative). The problem is that each candidate puts forth the party line and then everyone starts butting heads. For once I would like to hear a candidate or an elected politician say "Ya' know, I see good points in all three approaches to governing. Whaddaya' say we start figuring out where we need more government and where we need less government and where we need a more moderate approach?" That to me is what we are lacking: a p**********l and/or congressional leader that can do that. The last time I remember anyone even resembling that was JFK and he got assassinated, maybe because of it. So, boys and girls, let's put our six-shooters away and talk about what areas of our society need more, or less or more moderate amounts of gov't. control.
For starters, what areas of society need more governmental control? I will suggest more governmental control over monopolistic businesses like utilities and energy (gas for example)
What areas need less gov't. interference? I say "Taxation". What's so bad about a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings? Or a consumer tax where we only pay taxes on what we buy?
What areas need a moderation of less and more gov't? That's a tough one for me because I think of this as a lukewarm, kinda milk-toast sort of thing. Maybe someone smarter than me can show where this approach can be utilized.
Hope we can turn this discussion into something more edifying and constructive. I confess I've done my share of ridiculing and placing blame and you all have my apologies.
The NY Times, now there's a good dependable source... (
show quote)
I have to agree fully. We can all use some civility.
As far as less government, I would say in everything except our country's defense, immigration control, and food. The rest should be private enterprise.
I also think we need to get rid of the e*******l college, use only the popular v**e. Plus, it would be good if to v**e, one cant be on welfare, SS, or any other government supported program as their only income source because that would be a conflict of interest. Make all representatives actually live in the place they represent, with congress only getting together 4 times a year for 1 month each time. What they don't get done can wait until next time. This would make it a lot harder for lobbyist companies to pay off our reps, and for the reps themselves to stall.
I also agree with the flat tax, which would eliminate the need for the IRS, saving billions a year, and making everyone get a foot in the game, which means they would actually v**e based on having to pay rather than just getting free stuff.
The flat national sales tax would be OK, as long as they didn't exempt anything. This would also make everyone join the team that pays, eliminating the people that just get free stuff without any type of paying.
quote=Spirit of 76 The NY Times, now there's a go... (
show quote)
Dave, you said As far as less government, I would say in everything except our country's defense, immigration control, and food. The rest should be private enterprise. Really Dave
what about law enforcement and prisons
..private for profit? We already have way to many people locked up...shall we provide a monetary incentive to incarcerate even more? How about environmental protection? In a few short years well be chocking on smog like Mexico city, drinking untreated sewage and watching the dead fish float downstream. How about education
naaaw, we dont need any standards there. Leave that to the private sector and the churches? Cant do .As per Brown V. Board of Education: All kids living in the United States have the right to a free public education. And the Constitution requires that all kids be given equal educational opportunity no matter what their race, ethnic background, religion, or sex, or whether they are rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen. What do you mean by food Govt. control of the food supply
isnt that Marxism. LOL.
This flat tax thing is something that I find particularly disturbing given the income disparity that we have in this country. Youre saying that a family of, say 4 earning perhaps 50K a year should pay the same a someone earning $2M. ?? Think about it. That family of 4 is already struggling. If they pay 10%, with no deductions or credits-which is the way it would be if we chucked the IRS like one of you guys suggested-they would pay $5,000. That other family would pay 200K leaving them with an income of 1.8M
.think that would put any kind of a dent in their lifestyle??Ill support a flat tax when we have a flat income
but that too would be Marxism.
I also have to take exception to the idea that people on assistance should not v**e. How undemocratic can you get. Conflict of interest. I receive social security and a GOVERNMENT pension. Should I not be allowed to v**e? How about barring CEOs from v****g. I think you can say that theyre a special interest. Common Guys, lets put some constructive thought into this.
quote=oilfieldDave quote=Spirit of 76 The NY Tim... (
show quote)
Chardo-
Yeah, privatize the cops, and prisons. Altho, cops could be domestic defense.............we already have many private run prisons, which work just as good as the gummitt run ones.
Environmental control is already in the hands of the wacko's. Making it public wacko's will change nothing. We would still have the supreme court to make the ultimate laws.........
All education should be private run, and cant be any worse than the public system we have now. Eliminate all college sports and non education programs that are a drain on the annual budget. (Unless they are funded solely by the participants and the fans) This would keep them from blowing $millions, and then raising tuition to cover it. This would then allow most to attend any school, as they would no longer cost $100K per year to cover the sports, drama, etc.
By food I mean inspection. Not distribution. I think you knew that, tho.
Yes, i think everyone should have skin in the game. Flat tax of say 10% means a family making $50K pays $5K, while family making $250K pays $25K, or one making $1000K pays $100K. Its the most fair, which should appeal to the party of fairness............your team!
It is a massive conflict of interest to have people that spend their lives on the backs of others being allowed to v**e to continue this sorry practice. Of course, your team wants to give everyone the same things that those who work, and buy the stuff, get. I disagree with rewarding laziness.
Social security should only pay out what a person put in. NO MORE! You, and everyone else are being over paid to garner v**es. Its total BS!
Spirit of 76 wrote:
The NY Times, now there's a good dependable source of information....NOT! Do I have to google their "journalistic faux pas" or will you admit their writers have done bald face lying? Chardo, you only like statistics that confirm what your subjective biases are. For every statistic you quote, I can show you a statistic that disproves it. You know, it's really true that our democratic form of gov't. only reflects our society. I've been in discussion groups on fb , with acquaintences, and now on this forum and the patterns are always the same. Everybody thinks they are right and no one wants to talk in agreeable terms. It's like we all want to prove the other one wrong and there's no sense of compromise.....JUST LIKE OUR GOV'T. Can we get agreement that the Democrats, in general, are liberal and believe that a bigger gov't. is a better gov't? I think it is harder to call the GOP conservative because most true Conservatives have left the GOP for the Tea Party. I think it's fair to call the GOP moderates, they feel strongly both ways (which is why they keep losing, they have no principles). The Tea Party is the conservative party that believes less gov't. is better gov't. Hopefully, it becomes apparent that we need a leader that can coalesce all three factions (liberal, moderate and conservative). The problem is that each candidate puts forth the party line and then everyone starts butting heads. For once I would like to hear a candidate or an elected politician say "Ya' know, I see good points in all three approaches to governing. Whaddaya' say we start figuring out where we need more government and where we need less government and where we need a more moderate approach?" That to me is what we are lacking: a p**********l and/or congressional leader that can do that. The last time I remember anyone even resembling that was JFK and he got assassinated, maybe because of it. So, boys and girls, let's put our six-shooters away and talk about what areas of our society need more, or less or more moderate amounts of gov't. control.
For starters, what areas of society need more governmental control? I will suggest more governmental control over monopolistic businesses like utilities and energy (gas for example)
What areas need less gov't. interference? I say "Taxation". What's so bad about a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings? Or a consumer tax where we only pay taxes on what we buy?
What areas need a moderation of less and more gov't? That's a tough one for me because I think of this as a lukewarm, kinda milk-toast sort of thing. Maybe someone smarter than me can show where this approach can be utilized.
Hope we can turn this discussion into something more edifying and constructive. I confess I've done my share of ridiculing and placing blame and you all have my apologies.
The NY Times, now there's a good dependable source... (
show quote)
I have to agree fully. We can all use some civility.
As far as less government, I would say in everything except our country's defense, immigration control, and food. The rest should be private enterprise.
I also think we need to get rid of the e*******l college, use only the popular v**e. Plus, it would be good if to v**e, one cant be on welfare, SS, or any other government supported program as their only income source because that would be a conflict of interest. Make all representatives actually live in the place they represent, with congress only getting together 4 times a year for 1 month each time. What they don't get done can wait until next time. This would make it a lot harder for lobbyist companies to pay off our reps, and for the reps themselves to stall.
I also agree with the flat tax, which would eliminate the need for the IRS, saving billions a year, and making everyone get a foot in the game, which means they would actually v**e based on having to pay rather than just getting free stuff.
The flat national sales tax would be OK, as long as they didn't exempt anything. This would also make everyone join the team that pays, eliminating the people that just get free stuff without any type of paying.
Neither Bush, nor Obama has anything to do with gas prices. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no real clue how energy pricing works in the world.
When there is an organization that supplies the largest majority of oil to the world, and they have meetings to control gas prices at a certain level, there is really nothing any world leader can do to change that.
As a worker in this field for 29 years, i can attest to that fact in watching my company and the rest of the oil, gas, chemical, and refinery companies try to change this, and failing. They can increase or decrease parts of their portfolio, but are still tied to the prices of their product.
This product is controlled by a relatively small group of extremely rich people in different countries around the world. OPEC is one such group. Even leaders of countries with huge oil reserves such as Iran cannot control the prices. They realize that if they are to mess with the prices by manipulating their country's oil, their time on this earth will be very limited. That is the kind of power these small organizations have.
So, never fool yourselves into thinking a president of the US has a whole lot to do with the price of oil.
I would love to blame Barry, but alas, i cant.
One would assume based on all of the rhetoric that Obama is the savior for the people, most intelligent Americans are understanding that this was An INCREDIBLY STUPID BELIEF. He has backed the OWS 99%, and has raised taxes on the 1%, which those that are jealous of what other people make thought was a good idea. Then, he raised the taxes on everyone else through the payroll tax hike, and his Obamacare tax hikes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/02/15/the-unsung-but-massive-obamacare-sales-tax-increase-that-is-on-the-way/
Even his supporters are pissed, as his lies of no tax increases except for the rich begin to show themselves for what they really are.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/?page=all
When will the Democrats that are not part of the mindless zombies in the Obama Army (those that do not believe as the uber-liberal progressives do) wake up?
By now one has to believe that they are realizing how stupid it was to give this lying sack of poop their v**e. Granted, Romney probably wouldn't have been much better, but at least he could have changed our course which 4 years has proven to be a disaster.
Are there any of those non liberal democrats on this site? If there are, please post as to why you thought it was a good idea to give the man who will go down in history as the worst president ever, your v**e.
You uber-libs can answer as well, but because of your mindless support of Obama's socialistic ways, your answers will likely be the same excuses we see every day in the mainstream Obama propaganda machine. (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and NPR)
Parkere1-
Don't drop out. Not everyone here disagree's. And, I don't mind getting down and dirty as long as it doesn't get personal, (in which case i get personal back, and the discussion is over)
No matter where you go, someone will be unpleasing. Just do your thing, post your American right to free speech, and allow the rest of us to enjoy your thoughts as well as all the others.
We need places to have debate. Not all debate sounds good, but if you ignore the nasty, and just enjoy the information, one can truly learn. You may not change your mind, but it is educating to have discussion with those you will always disagree with.
I find Richard "the Chardo" to be a fun debate, even those his zeal sometimes gets a bit nasty. He gets that way because of the passion he puts into his beliefs. I, too, have that passion. But i still like to read his posts, comment, and debate. Its the only way we who disagree so vehemently can ever continue to live in the same nation.
I for one would like you to stay! Like me and the Chardo, you and (perhaps me) whoever is ugly to you can still debate. It is good for all of us on this site. If we all agreed with each other all the time, life would be a bore.
You know i like the s**t out of you Richard. In fact, you are rapidly rising to the top of my "fave Liberal" status, but you do need to kick it back a notch when you go on the attack. Trust me on this, i do battle on a local newspaper comment section with all of the Liberals in eastern WA, and its easy to allow ones self to get s**tty.
You know i dig debating you, and respect your opinions even tho i know they are not right .......... 8-)
If you treat the other non-liberals here the way you treat me, things will not get this ugly.
Just an Observation from your facebook buddy Dave from Spokane!!
Dont lie dude, the only job you have is picking up your SNAP car each month.
You like being insulted? No? Well, then think before you type.
Dude, just because you yell out your reply doesnt make it true. Get a grip, read, and learn. You wont look so ignorant!
Naturally you have no links, just some loony claims from the far left which still denies (in the face of all historical facts) that the democrats are the party of s***ery, the KKK, and the anti-civil rights of the 1960's.
Its laughable the lies that you lefty's tell without any proof.
You think the rest of us are a stoopid as the left? We dont buy anything you spout. We ask for proof, which you cannot supply.
The problem with what you claim, Richard, is the hard t***h that Barry Obama has been in charge for over 4 years, and his first two he had the house and senate majority, so he could have done anything needed to save us...........obviously he really didnt care that much.
Anything we have today is a direct result of Obama policy. You can try to spin it, but it doesn't hold up.
Obama implemented the Bush TARP, then had an even bigger one himself. Did nothing for the economy.
He forced his g***n e****y policies on us, did nothing except pay his donors big money to file for bankruptcy.
He forced through his Health Care policy (without any of the t***sparency he campaigned on) and today, we saw 700 lawyer speak pages for 4 rules that do nothing but add cost to health care. Plus, his threats of his plan alone have caused the HC insurance companies to raise rates and force our costs to skyrocket.
He has raised taxes, and done all he wanted, and yet still we are in the recession he claimed was over in 2010.
It is ALL his fault. Not Bush's, not the taxpayers, not anyone but Barack Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama's fault. He owns the economy, the healthcare debacle, B******i, the immigration crisis, all of it.
As he said to 60 minutes, after 4 years if things were not better, he didn't deserve a second term. He doesn't deserve anything except impeachment for his lies on B******i, and his illegal appointments during session. Not to mention the $millions if not $billions by now for he and Michelle's extravagant lifestyles and vacations.
Too bad all of the i***ts that believed he would give them free stuff for not working didn't realize he was lying when they cast their v**es.
Because, Barry is about giving money away, not taking it in. This will not make him popular with the people he told he would give them everything. He wants the repubs to be blamed, even though he signed it into law, as part of the agreement he got to raise the debt ceiling.
Here is a quote from your article :
"The states law allows people to have firearms in their homes, places of business, and vehicles, but to carry a concealed firearm in public places, residents of the state must apply with their local sheriff for a permit; the law allows each sheriff to implement and administer."
So, it does allow for one to have a gun for protection, just not for one to carry it concealed without a permit.
That alone should horrify you Richard. The judges admit we all have the right to have guns, and even carry and conceal, as long as we have a permit. The far reaching implications that this article claims also must include the parts about guns being legal, and even legal to carry concealed if one has a permit. That is where your liberal site messed up with posting this. It really does nothing for gun control, and for those of use that believe in gun rights, it validates everything.
Thanks for the link!!