birdog1960 Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 If you are asking whether I believe the Constitution is a "living breathing document" open to the popular interpretive change of the day and implemented by the whims of activist Justices. I don't so, once again, if the meaning is self evident, why do we need a supreme court at all, much less 9 justices? the "interpretation" should be clear to everyone without disagreement or dissent.
whateverdude Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 so, once again, if the meaning is self evident, why do we need a supreme court at all, much less 9 justices? the "interpretation" should be clear to everyone without disagreement or dissent. Um... cause it's in the constitution....I think every obvious question deserves a dumb answer.
drnykterstein Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 It's a good thing there's no such thing as an ultra rich liberal influencing policy. There's no limits to partisan stupidity. You have completely missed the point of my post. The left far and wide already can't stand the wealthy and has a healthy distrust of them (do you argue?). It's the moron right wing that seems to be blind to super rich that control their lives. It's right wingers that created this stupid thread, it's crazy right wingers that said in this thread they wanted a flat tax, it's right wingers that passed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. The right is extremely blind to who is controlling their life. I only offered one explanation for this. The left already can't stand the rich, I doubt they need any prodding from me. But hey if you want to see how wealthy liberals handle their money... http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsm...rtune/index.htm http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...p_sections_news
drnykterstein Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 1 - Agenda: In general, increase the power of the state and limit the rights of the individual. In practice, whatever the flavor of the month that advances the power of the state That is not their agenda. Where the hell do you get these ideas from? You've been drinking too much of Limbaughs cum. Liberal Agenda: - Equality for gays - Social safety nets for the unlucky and unfortunate poor - Don't torture people, don't fight unnecessary wars - Environmental protection - Individual freedoms (net neutrality, pro-choice, no spying, etc) - Regulate overreaching corporations so they don't drown out the individual voter 2 - Tactics: Divide and conquer. Create such disdain for the other guys (you know, that "crazy right wing" you speak of) that you don't notice or care about the wrongs your own team Uhm.. the "other guys" are batshit insane. Gingrich, Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, Beck, Boehner, Rove do enough on their own to make America hate them. They don't need any help from any liberals to put their stupidity on display.
Magox Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 You have completely missed the point of my post. The left far and wide already can't stand the wealthy and has a healthy distrust of them (do you argue?). It's the moron right wing that seems to be blind to super rich that control their lives. It's right wingers that created this stupid thread, it's crazy right wingers that said in this thread they wanted a flat tax, it's right wingers that passed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. The right is extremely blind to who is controlling their life. I only offered one explanation for this. The left already can't stand the rich, I doubt they need any prodding from me. But hey if you want to see how wealthy liberals handle their money... http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsm...rtune/index.htm http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...p_sections_news Your ignorance knows no bounds....
Chef Jim Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 You have completely missed the point of my post. The left far and wide already can't stand the wealthy and has a healthy distrust of them (do you argue?). It's the moron right wing that seems to be blind to super rich that control their lives. It's right wingers that created this stupid thread, it's crazy right wingers that said in this thread they wanted a flat tax, it's right wingers that passed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. The right is extremely blind to who is controlling their life. I only offered one explanation for this. The left already can't stand the rich, I doubt they need any prodding from me. But hey if you want to see how wealthy liberals handle their money... http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsm...rtune/index.htm http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...p_sections_news Yes the right knows no philanthropy. They are all evil I tell you....evil! And please, please, please once and for all explain to us how the rich were the only ones benefiting from the Bush tax cuts.
GG Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 You have completely missed the point of my post. The left far and wide already can't stand the wealthy and has a healthy distrust of them (do you argue?). It's the moron right wing that seems to be blind to super rich that control their lives. It's right wingers that created this stupid thread, it's crazy right wingers that said in this thread they wanted a flat tax, it's right wingers that passed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. The right is extremely blind to who is controlling their life. I only offered one explanation for this. The left already can't stand the rich, I doubt they need any prodding from me. But hey if you want to see how wealthy liberals handle their money... http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsm...rtune/index.htm http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...p_sections_news So, in a post where you vilify the super rich for controlling everyone's lives you offer evidence of the world's two richest people pledging $$ billions to charity? ps - those two are far from liberal, because they insist on tight control of how their charitable dollars are spent, and that's why Gates Foundation is probably the best run charity in the world. Note he didn't just hand over a check to the government. Just when pretenders attempt to steal your crown, you swipe them aside like a gnat.
drnykterstein Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 Yes the right knows no philanthropy. They are all evil I tell you....evil! And please, please, please once and for all explain to us how the rich were the only ones benefiting from the Bush tax cuts. Ok. Krugman goes into detail (warning: it's far over your head and you will feel dumb and call Krugman names)
drnykterstein Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 ps - those two are far from liberal, because they insist on tight control of how their charitable dollars are spent, and that's why Gates Foundation is probably the best run charity in the world. Note he didn't just hand over a check to the government. Call em what you want. They both supported Obama and still do.
Magox Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 Krugman goes into detail (warning: it's far over your head and you will feel dumb and call Krugman names) Who talks like this?
Chef Jim Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 Ok. Krugman goes into detail (warning: it's far over your head and you will feel dumb and call Krugman names) No, those don't explain how the Bush tax cuts did not include lower and middle classes. As a matter of fact they saw their taxes reduced by a greater amount than rich people. Do you know what cap gains rate the lowest tax bracket pays now?
IDBillzFan Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 Ok. Krugman goes into detail (warning: it's far over your head and you will feel dumb and call Krugman names) Man, this is absolutely awesome. How can anyone argue with your points? First, the Dow is up 100 points today. I guess Wall Street really loves the new financial regulation reform bill. And then, you give us a Paul Krugman article while simultaneously poisoning the well for anyone to criticize it because, obviously, to criticize it simply means it's "over your head." That's almost as juicy as Obama telling the world that the reason the economy isn't recovering is because he simply hasn't explained his message well enough. What's especially fun with Krugman's article is the artful use of words like "projecting," and phrases like "what would things look like if..." and "it seems fair to assert..." only to end up with "The bottom line, then, is this..." So let me get this right, Paulie...if we assume "this" and pretend "that" and assume "this" and assert "that," then clearly there is only one bottom line! He's like Al Gore, but with slightly less credibility.
drnykterstein Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 You two are crazy. Anyways, I see this as related to this topic (getting the wealthy to stop controlling our elections) http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66P5...t=Google+Reader Also a nifty graph: http://i.imgur.com/SJbOq.png
Chef Jim Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 You two are crazy. Anyways, I see this as related to this topic (getting the wealthy to stop controlling our elections) http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66P5...t=Google+Reader Also a nifty graph: http://i.imgur.com/SJbOq.png You post a chart that shows the Dow was up 100 points yesterday to prove that only the rich benefited from tax cuts and you call us crazy.
RkFast Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 You post a chart that shows the Dow was up 100 points yesterday to prove that only the rich benefited from tax cuts and you call us crazy. Only "the rich" own stock, dumbass. The rich and snobby cyclists.
Chef Jim Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 Only "the rich" own stock, dumbass. The rich and snobby cyclists. I'm cool with the rich. Snobby cyclists.....not so much.
ieatcrayonz Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 I'm cool with the rich. Snobby cyclists.....not so much. Snobby is the wrong word. Spandex mafia works. Belligerent works. Snobby....not so much. To be snobby you ideally would have at least some intelligence. Riding a bike on a road designed for cars and demanding the laws of physics be repealed so you can wear cute and colorful spandex outfits is certainly belligerent, but lacks the the scintilla of intelligence required to be a snob. Snob wannabe? I can accept that.
keepthefaith Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 Snobby is the wrong word. Spandex mafia works. Belligerent works. Snobby....not so much. To be snobby you ideally would have at least some intelligence. Riding a bike on a road designed for cars and demanding the laws of physics be repealed so you can wear cute and colorful spandex outfits is certainly belligerent, but lacks the the scintilla of intelligence required to be a snob. Snob wannabe? I can accept that. I would just call them boring. They'd rather go to bed early on a Friday so they can get up early Saturday to ride instread of whooping it up on the weekend. The colorful spandex is worn to make you think they aren't boring. They are wannabe's in the sense that the colorful clothing often includes numbers or fake sponsor names even though they have never raced.
RkFast Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 I would just call them boring. They'd rather go to bed early on a Friday so they can get up early Saturday to ride instread of whooping it up on the weekend. The colorful spandex is worn to make you think they aren't boring. They are wannabe's in the sense that the colorful clothing often includes numbers or fake sponsor names even though they have never raced. THATS IT.....Im trading in my FDJ jersey for a Bills replica and going out boozing.
Chef Jim Posted July 27, 2010 Posted July 27, 2010 I would just call them boring. They'd rather go to bed early on a Friday so they can get up early Saturday to ride instread of whooping it up on the weekend. The colorful spandex is worn to make you think they aren't boring. They are wannabe's in the sense that the colorful clothing often includes numbers or fake sponsor names even though they have never raced. I always think it's a riot how many of those people wearing the racing gear are fat asses.
Recommended Posts