The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Rol_Lei Nut on 19 Sep 2009 17:50 tony cooper wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:57:03 +0200, Rol_Lei Nut > <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> tony cooper wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:36:03 +0200, Rol_Lei Nut >>> <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Bill Graham wrote: >>>>> If I were a professional house breaker, I would go to some country >>>>> where no one is allowed to own a gun. That's just good common sense. >>>> Unfortunately for you, those are the countries where neighbours are >>>> friendly and look out for each other.... >>> Countries like, say, Scotland? >>> >>> "A United Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent >>> country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to >>> be assaulted than in America. >>> >>> England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent >>> assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest." (2005) >>> >>> >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece >>> >> I've never held the UK up as an example, as in many ways it >> follows/emulates the US... >> That is unfortunately (Yob culture) why I would have serious >> reservations about living there. >> But I have similar or worse reservations about living in the U.S. (apart >>from a very few places). >> In most (the vast majority) of Europe, volent crime rates are a fraction >> of the U.S. (and U.K.) ones. > > You're back-pedaling. You made the point that countries where private > ownership of guns is not allowed being safer. The UK is a country > where gun ownership is largely curtailed. Yet, violent crime is > rampant in the UK. > Your post does mention "assaulted", not shot dead. Not that assaulted is very good either...
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Sep 2009 18:02 mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4ab51751$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>>>><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>> mikey4 wrote: >> >>>>>>> People are pissed because "they" have finely woke up to the fact that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> "government" is out of control and has been for a very long time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving >>>>>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do >>>>>> NOTHING >>>>>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't just >>>>>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama had >>>>>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right there >>>>>> with ya, but that isn't what happened. >>>>>> Stephanie >>>>> >>>>>My point here Stephanie is that this entire mess is a result of *both* >>>>>parties screwing the pooch for *years and years and years*. >>>> >>>> It is a fundamental policy of republicans to cut taxes for the rich >>>> and reduce or eliminate government regulation while allowing >>>> corporations free reign. Those policies cause this current economic >>>> climate. >>>> >>>> Lack of regulation allowed the finanicial collapse. Cutting taxes for >>>> the rich left the middle class further in debt. Free reign for >>>> corporations allowed them to cut worker salaries in order to give >>>> countless millions to execs. >>>> >>>> And when the middle class doesn't have money to spend, and when the >>>> financial industry collapses, and when the rich ship their money out >>>> of the country, then you get an economy that's in the toilet. >>>> >>>> -- >>>Here we go with rays typical response. There was no lack of regulation >>>ray, >>>you really need to read up on the SEC and how it came about. >> >> For the stupid: There were insufficient regulations to control the >> sort of financial instruments that led to the collapse. >> >For the putz, next time say so. Obviously I need to dumb it down to the 4th grade level for you. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Sep 2009 18:03 mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >> BTW GWB won by the smallest margin in history yet claimed a "mandate". >> >Not the first time around. He just acted like he had a mandate. > Obama has only Obamas interest at heart. Wait >and see. You're a bank robber. "Wait and see." -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Sep 2009 18:05 mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4ab51c73$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>news:h916ml$lne$3(a)news.albasani.net... >> >>>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving >>>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do NOTHING >>>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't just >>>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama had >>>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right there >>>> with ya, but that isn't what happened. >>>> >>>> Stephanie >>>I still don't understand about these, "massive tax cuts to the wealthy". >>>the >>>last time I checked, the more money you make, the greater percentage you >>>have to pay, .....that's what the tax tables in the form 1040 tell me..... >> >> That's the sort of ignorant thinking that gets rightards into trouble. >> >> There are many ways the wealthy get to pay lower taxes. Here's one: >> >> Long-term capital gains and dividends aren't taxed as regular income. >> It's a flat 15% even before you find any deductions. So, if you own a >> ton of stock that pays you $250,000/yr in dividends then you pay no more >> than 15% of that as income tax. If you are given $100,000,000 in >> stock by the company and you sell it a year later, you pay 15%. >> >> If you earn $150,000 as straight salary then you pay about twice as >> much. >> >> -- >and if you are ray and have little to no stock you pay little or nothing. Awww. mikey is feeling cranky again because he's stupid. He doesn't know about taxes and stock dividends and assumes that others are as stupid as he is. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Sep 2009 18:08
mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4ab51946$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>> Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >> >>>>>>> Much the same with the latest ACORN scandal, which stunk so badly >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> even Democrats in Congress finally voted to stop funding ACORN. But >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> never even heard about it from ABC, CBS or NBC, did you? >>>>>> [Nonsense deleted...] >>>>>> >>>>>> What was shown on tape from a *few* ACORN locations (but where >>>>>> were the reportings of the ones that threw out these imposters?) >>>>> >>>>>What makes you think ANY of the ACORN offices did or would do any >>>>>differently from the ones on tape? ACORN is rotten and corrupt to the >>>>>core. >>>> >>>> If that's true then it must also be true of the Republican party given >>>> the number of Republicans who have been shown to be lying, >>>> philandering hypocrites. >>> >>>Just like the lefttards >> >> Never trust a man who gives online retorts with *no* substance. >> mikey in <h8rvun$1hb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> >> -- >Snip away ray Run away, hypocrite. It's always so easy to argue against you rightards jut by throwing your own words back at you. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |