Previous 11 - 20 Next
The right challeged Cleland and Duckworth on their political positions - not on their physical disabilities. But liberals believe that liberals with disabilities can't be touched...regardless of outrageous stupid liberal voting record....while being quite willing to descend into the muck and mire and challege handicapped conservatives - not on their record - but on disabilities. It takes someone with more than a room-temperature IQ to understand the difference - which is why you made the remarks.
In response to:

Fact-Free Liberals: Part III

Michael2944 Wrote: Jan 22, 2014 10:10 AM
"War on Poverty" - the most expensive (and loosing) war than all the other wars - COMBINED. Liberals claim that Bush 'lied us into the war in Iraq - and wasted a Trillion Dollars. Well - the Democrats lied us into the war on poverty, and wasted $16 Trillion - about the total amount of the national debt....with little to show for it, except more poverty, more dependency, bigger government that is burdening the working people.
I suspect that he is looking at stock cost (Price)...vs. the potential growth in Earnings (the PE ratio that is an indicator of REAL stock value...). Some companies (like Twitter) - have essentially no earning (income subtract costs leaving no profit, maybe even a slight loss)...so earnings per share is dividing by ZERO....Not a good thing! A typically good Price to Earnings ratio might be somewhere between 8 to 15....and the higher it is, the more risky it is.
In response to:

Dumb Politicians Won't Get Elected

Michael2944 Wrote: Dec 25, 2013 2:44 PM
Those named, plus Patty Murray or other Congress-critters - might be intellectually very dim bulbs, but they can have bright political advisers who inform them how to 'buy votes' by supporting un-Constitutional bills that spend money, while borrowing the money (Stealing from future generations.) The reality is that they are 'corruptly smart' ...they know what it takes to get re-elected. Yes - there is a bit of satire, or cynicism on behalf of the brilliant Walter Williams to point out that an honorable and intelligent person who wishes to honor his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution would loose the next election to someone who promises big benefits to voters. That is 'dumb'...in a world turned upside down.
YOUR analysis is WRONG. Social Security system was sold as an insurance program, providing immediate disability insurance, and supplemental retirement income in the future. People get benefits proportional to what they pay in. With a limit on what is paid in based on upper income limits, then there is a limit on what they can pull out. Your suggestion is to simply consider Social Security tax as same as income tax....and the payments are same as WELFARE. This is not how the program has ever been sold, but progressives essentially want it to become an income transfer tax. Everything else in your posting is liberal mush that makes no sense -- you want to substitute governmental redistribution of income instead of free market economy. Now...I wish it were possible for all liberals/Democrats/progressives to pay taxes and receive benefits from a progressive government that fits the Marxist mantra of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'....and conservatives can opt out of receiving social security (and not pay into it), getting federal subsidized health care (and not pay into it), etc. ...and then the conservatives can pay a much lower tax rate, paying for national defense and other items that are covered in the Constitution...while liberals pay the higher tax rates to FULLY support those programs NOT covered in the Constitution. There is one big problem with this....as Dame Margaret Thatcher remarked..."the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money." Socialism is a sucker's game - a desire to live better off of others' hard work. (Another appropriate term is PARASITE!)
Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes - the money is taken from some and given to others. Medicare - at present, seniors might have paid in an AVERAGE of $120K and will get on AVERAGE - $360K in benefits - which means it is totally unsupportable/unsustainable...i.e. - BROKEN. Social Security and Medicare programs should be treated the same as investments by people in Bernie Madoff's schemes. Everyone should be told that due to lack of diligence by everyone (voters)...the Bernie Madoffs running the system (the politicians) have looted everything, and there is a need to totally restructure everything - IMMEDIATELY. This will hurt everyone SOME...but it is better than pretending the systems are solvent and can continue as is, with no changes. If no changes occur -at some point in the future, the future generations will totally repudiate the debt and refuse to pay ANYTHING on it...and I would not blame them. The fault lies with the voters, for voting for corrupt people who promised the sun/moon/stars - without paying for anything. It isn't fair to blame politicians ....they do what ever it takes to get re-elected. You want honesty/integrity and a willingness to follow the Constitution - well, if/when their re-election requires THAT...then they will do it... until then, they know that they get re-elected if they bring home the bacon and promise big programs to benefit their constituents. Yes - there are a minority of people who voted for honest politicians, but they failed to get out the vote for integrity...and so they also have to suffer...a pity, but it is reality.
Alternatively - the baker should insist on creative freedom AND payment in advance - then bake a cake and place on the top a scripture reference that argues against sodomy. Since the buyers insisted on a cake - they get a cake. Since they bought the cake from a baker who is a Christian - why should they not get a Christian themed cake!
Somewhere - a villiage is missing its idiot. And the idiot is off his/her meds.
Go back and re-read the article with an open mind and you will see that Alexander is against the propaganda. Her argument is that schools are promoting safe sex, rather than pointing out REAL risks. And an important fact - at a Doctor's conference - not one indicated that they would be willing to engage in sex with someone who had HIV or AIDs....because condomos are NOT 99% safe. Alexander's stat was about 17% failure - which is like playing Russian roulette with a revovler.
In response to:

ObamaCare Limits Patient Choice

Michael2944 Wrote: Dec 08, 2013 9:55 PM
ObamaCare was sold under a number of lies ...if a private company convinced buyers to purchase the plan, courts would rule them guilty of felony misrepresentation...and there would be BIG FINES. Everyone should be put on record as to whether or not they support ObamaCare - with a requirement that if it can't muster a majority vote, then supporters will get a 10% income tax surcharge to pay for the fraudulently financed web sites that didn't and don't work and were awarded in no-bid situations, going to friends of Obama. I think it hilarious that during the time that Pres. Bush was in office, Halliburton was the end-all corporate evil that everyone pointed to - even though former CEO Cheney had totally divested himself from Halliburton. (And for the most part, Halliburton delivered on a number of reasonably priced contracts that few other companies could compete on. OTOH - Obama is able to give big supporters and bundlers no-bid contracts that ended up as failures, bankrupt companies, or web building companies that delivered rotten products that cost hundreds of times more than what good companies could have accomplished. Cronyism runs rampant in Obama's White House.
In response to:

ObamaCare Limits Patient Choice

Michael2944 Wrote: Dec 08, 2013 9:48 PM
Off meds? Can't sign up for heavily subsidized ObamaCare and get psych. treatment that you need? Or is it just that a village has lost its idiot. Go tell your mother that she should not leave the computer out for idiot children to play with.
Previous 11 - 20 Next