Pointman. You just posted this but don't show up as currently logged on users yet PainD does... Who the fuk are you kidding. As a matter of fact I have Never seen both of you logged in at the same time. Of course there are ways to simulate it and I am sure that is what we will see in the future but why hasn't it happened yet.. Sad Dude cause I thought you were a decent sort.

Yes exactly.

Thanks again for proving my point.

It's real rocket science, so follow me:

When the economy is bustling along, tax revenues go up.
When the economy sucks, tax revenues go down.

It's a cyclical thing.

there is absolutely NOTHING that a president can do to change that, not by borrowing money to "stimulate" the economy, and certainly not by borrowing money to give away to the ultra-rich in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, they might throw us middle class peasants a crumb and create a job with it (which history has proven again and again over the last 30 years does not work either).

Nothing a President can do, by borrowing money, to fix this. Get it?

It get fixed by:

* getting out of unprovoked, unsubstantiated wars and uninvited occupation of sovereign nations.
* closing every single US military installation abroad unless by doing so creates a clear and present danger to our nation or our allies (ie. we don't need three military installation in Germany, they can pretty well fend for themselves.)
* legalizing and taxing the shi.t out of drugs and ending this 1 trillion+ dollar, 40 year old, failure
* legalizing and taxing all forms of gambling including sports gambling in all 50 states

there is just 4 ideas that would have this deficit cut in half in a year.

And that is straight up Libertarian, my friend.

So we might be talking to Sybil. Big f.ucking deal. The important thing is people who want higher taxes actually give extra.

Do it. Or just give all your money away. Be all you can be. Your shepherd is right. Listen to him and give all you can because your shepherd is above the law.

I am kidding no one. The mods know that PD is not me, so let's stop playing games. I am sorry you don't like PD's views but to continue to come after me for merely introducing the website to others is silly.

Please tell me why I would need to do what you accuse me of?

Because you want to go full on ape-**** on Riot and not look like an azzhole ? Maybe?

:tro::tro::tro: And why does everyone Anti Romney have to be accused of wanting to raise taxes. I am not for raising taxes.

RUde you said lowering taxes is giving money away. You're talking as if the government is far more important than the individual.

The collective, as the Marxist hipster douches say. We don't owe this government a f.ucking thing. You don't want to pay taxes to a government that gave immunity to the people that caused this mess in the first place.

The government will take the extra tax revenue and spend more. You are basically an enabler.

Seriously wtf are you all thinking? And to think those of you were starting to wake up. :mad:

Wow. They have different user settings. You cracked the case...

I agree with cyclical part. I disagree about tax revenue running along the cyclical part without it having anything to do with the tax rate.

I agree with all the other things you are saying.

One is a hidden user and the other is not! Totally the same person! Lets report them both to DHS.

So what is the setting to not show up on currently logged on users?

That is ridiculous, I have never backed off anyone that has come at me. I think it is pretty clear that I don't need anyone to help me deal with Riot. You are barking up the wrong tree. I have no agenda against you or Hoss, but it seems like you guys want to pick me apart because I introduced someone to the website that you don't like and I think that is silly.

Anyone in the NY area that wants to meet both PD and myself can do so by asking and decide for themselves, a Saturday or Sunday at Belmont is fine with me.

look now conspiracy theorist, in fact since I have been logged on all morning and Pointman just posted then obviously we are both logged on at the same time. What's matter JMS, you thought Point Man was a good guy until you decided that you didn't like his politics? do you think Riot is a good person with all of her nasty insults and bullying?

Invisible mode.

Cool! It's like a cloaking device. :D

Coach, not at all. I just can't take this insipid notion that borrowing more money to further lower taxes on the wealthy, after we've been doing just that nearly every year for the past 12 years, is going to some how cure all the problems in this country.

C'est la vie

You've got a population of 10% critical thinkers, 10% far fringe lunatic extremists, and 80% sheep. It's just a matter of time.

I tried debating him (you) and he's disingenuous and would rather deflect than discuss anything other than "Obama sucks."

He said all freeloaders are voting for Obama. Well, obviously that isn't true, but he has said many times he stands by it. When I have tried to ask him how he knows, he ignored it. When I showed him info that would lead to his assumption being untrue, he deflected and then talked around it.

And really...you're the last person that should be talking about an agenda.

Exactly.

It's so simple it's stupid, but the sheep and the fringe freaks refuse to see it.

If one week I purchase something at the store for $5.00,
The following week, I get a 1.00 off coupon and pay 4.00,
The third week I don't have coupon and have to pay 5.00 again - Did the store raise the price??!!

The tax rates were what they were before the Bush plan was put in place to artificially "lower" them by borrowing money to pay for them.

They expired and should not be extended because we don't have the money for them, in fact we are 16 Trillion in debt, in part because of them.

Is that a call to raise them, or did the coupon simply expire??!! :wf:zz:

Raising the tax rates won't even come close to closing the deficit, that is not where the problem is.

You didn't try debating me, you kept coming at me false information and some stupid notion that I said all unemployed people would vote for Obama, which I never said. I even corrected myself to say that most freeloaders would vote for Obama (obviously a few will vote for Obama) and then you started attacking personally. If that is your way of debating then you need a lot of polish.

Then how about ending the 2 wars that cost how many Trillion already and your boy wants us to get involved with Iran too... He Haw...

Couldn't agree with you more on that one, we should be out of Afghanistan today.

And Romeny wants to duke it out with IRAN.. I will vote against him JUST because he has that position. A republican can't cry about the debt and then want to get involved in another war. It is just not logical... A republican can't start 2 wars and then cry about the debt. A republican can't start the ball rolling on the bailouts and then cry about the debt simply because their guy who got the ball rolling is no longer in office.

We never should have gone into Iraq, but are you saying we shouldn't have originally gone into Afghanistan?

Keep twisting

Yes I am. No country has ever won a war in Afghanistan in over 2000 years. Going to war in Afghanistan Bankrupt the Soviet Union. Yet we are arrogant enough to go all in thinking we would make history??? At the end of the day we got Bin Laden with a small elite force.... Wouldn't that have been a method that could be used from the get go? We went into Iraq so George Bush could show his father that he was up to the task... We went into Afghanistan as vengence for 911 when all along a small elite force was all that was needed.

I disagree with on that, we won the war, pretty easily at that, modern warfare has no relation to 2,000 years, but we should have been out of there right away.

As far as Iraq, I agree with you and I am assuming you weren't for Obama's Libya war.

But lets face it, stopping the wars would help but the real problem is entitlement spending. Ignoring it won't make the problem go away.

I think the issue is more complicated than this. We can debate whether we should have gotten involved in the wars in the first place and theier cost, but that is not going to change the position we are in now and we we have to go forward. We can just pull all our troops but the question that then has to be asked is what happens after that. If we just leave these countries open to be taken over by terrorists, then we are inviting an even bigger war than we are in now.

As far as Iran goes, I do not believe that Romney wants to get into a war with Iran, but that he has a fundemental difference with Obama on how to handle preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. I believe that Obama has been very weak on this issue and has not done enough to stop it. Obama is coming off as a leader unwilling to use force and it seems that those with an agenda against the U.S. are starting to test him. If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, we just may see a much bigger war then what we are in right now and I think Romney is more likely to take action to prevent them from getting a nuclear bomb.

We won the war? Why because GWB declared victory? We are still there and we have kids dying weekly. We have not won the war becuase it isn't over and oh by the way it looks like it will bankrupt us also... Your definition of victory is a hell of a lot different than mine.

I don't agree with you but I respect your position.

that is a huge issue for me. and a huge part of why i don't want romney-he advocates removing some of the restraints placed on banks since they effed everyone up-except themselves of course. no criminal charges, big bonuses paid to the people who got their bonus money from the taxpayer funded bailout. ain't life grand? enrons pres and others got charged and jailed. name one banker who had similar occur?

you can go in and set yourself to 'hidden'. i did that a few years back because any time i logged in, another user (since banned) would immediately start pm'ing me. didn't want to advertise i was around, so i took advantage of that setting.
guess i can change it, never thought about it again til now!


it's under user cp edit options.

:tro:

Are you talking about Afghanistan? We were in Kabul in no time with the Northern Alliance. Taliban fighters were switching sides, we should have been gone then, that was years ago.

true, spending cuts need to be done as well.

romney wants to raise defense spending, already the biggest single budget item for the fed.

did you know it takes every other country in the world added together on defense to equal our defense spending alone? and he wants to raise it. why?

We didn't go all in, that was the issue from the beginning. Both wars were fought without a clear military objective and are therefore by definition, not winnable. It has been the problem with the strategies since WWII, not once has a clear objective been defined for our efforts in any theater, that is why we have been fighting forever and not accomplishing a thing.

PD (aka. Pointman #2) probably doesn't know that because he is new to the board.

Oh wait. No...he, (they), (Nick) probably left it unhidden intentionally as part of the ruse.

My God...there's no telling how deep this thing may go.

This discussion is about the financial aspect not military strategy.

what war did we win?

and actually, modern warfare is comparable, especially in afganistan.
for comparison, the welsh successfully fought the much larger, richer england for centuries by using guerilla tactics. it was only when Edward 1 decided to install permanent garrisons (and built 8 state of the art castles in strategic areas) that wales was finally conquered.
lincolns (and others) huge fear towards the end of the civil war here was to have to face guerrilla warfare. luckily it didn't happen.

another great example? vietnam.
the 'war on terror' can't be fought conventionally. war in afganistan can't necessarily be either. unless we garrison troops all over that country, for years, we will never get a good grip on that country. is that what you want to see happen?
we've already spent billions on a country worth millions. to what end? and terrorism is still a threat, and will remain so.
yes, invading afganistan absolutely was a mistake. invading that country will prove a complete waste. we can't get that country to become peaceful, and we will fight there as long as we remain without a real end in sight. why? what will be gained?

I agree Danzig cuts needs to come from everywhere including the military.