On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:27 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:33:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:45:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up
the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data.

No one had asked previously.


I asked several times.

No, you asked about the divorce rate.


Play semantics all you want -- I said that half of all marriages end
up in divorce and you coughed up your statistic. Now you have to
explain how your statistic relates to my statement.


But since you have now, the percentage of
married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is
about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and
gather information from.


Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people
that are married have been previously married? And how many times?

Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant.


No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all
marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and
divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that
information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau.
The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the
source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the
subject. My statement was correct.

So then how many divorcees end up remarried?




Care to help Social Security?

The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS
withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes
those who have already given into the SS program for their entire
working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to
everyone.


So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat
idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have
tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to
"divert".

Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts?


Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure....
It's true because I say it's true.

In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated
"factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist.


If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both
Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing
propagandists then I suppose you are correct.


The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social
security"?


Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure
out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican
bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the
Republicans.

So I suppose that the democrats had not done the same thing when they
controlled the congress (Which they did up until 1994)?

If you want to say that congress plays creative accounting games with
Social Security, I'll agree and let it pass. But don't try to pin this
on republicans alone. Unless, of course, you truly are a blind
partisan.


If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a
"welfare state" I might agree.

They refer to it by different names.


Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure.

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement.


Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate
change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or
a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal
has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any
other name?

Any liberal who supports subsidizing any and all social programs,
starting with Welfare, and ending with Medicare. This programs are
part and parcel of a "Welfare State".


Names like "living wage", "fair
share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing.
Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't.


LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'!

Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only
thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like
defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in.


First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important
to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to
irresponsible Republican economic plans

Irresponsible Republican plans? You really area blind partisan aren't
you? What "republican (Or democrat for that matter) plan" can stop the
natural course to the free international market without seriously
altering it?

And who stops those who are making less than a living wage from
obtaining the skills necessary to rise above that? You did it. I did
it. There's no excuse for anyone so motivated to not rise above the
poverty level. Of course you'd have to stop ****ing away your pay on
drugs, booze and cheap "dates" with the professional women.

It's called "Personal Responsibility". Take charge of your own life.
Don't wait for the government to bale you out (And blame then when
they don't).

Repeat after me: "I am not a victim!"



(not to forget that 40% of
wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore
didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than
a loan).

I suppose you're one of those people who feel that those who didn't
put anything into the tax system should v'e got something back. This
wasn't "giveaway money" it was a REBATE on tax money already paid in
to the system, If you didn't pay anything in, you can't very well get
a rebate on it back. Last time I went to school 100% of zero is still
zero.



Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who
skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of
other carefully legislated loopholes.

As opposed to the progressive tax scale which punishes those who
achieve by burdening them with a higher tax rate? A flat tax rate is
the fairest thing. Everyone pays the same percentage. Those who make
more, pay more as a matter of percentage of gross. But a progressive
tax rate is little more than a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to
shift the burdens of society from those who take the most, to those
who make the most.


And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health
care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not

But SOMEONE has to pay for it.


-- more
specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents
work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let
alone health insurance for their children.

People who do not possess the skills or motivation to obtain gainful
jobs should not be having children. It's that "personal
responsibility" thing again. Raising children is an enormous
responsibility both financial and emotional. Potential parents should
be ready on both counts before bringing another mouth to feed into the
world and then abdicating their responsibilities on to the rest of us.

It's also targeted towards
the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust
fund dries up in a few years

Yet you guys on the left are the ones now claiming that there is no
problem with social security. Yet when Clinton was in office, it was a
"big problem". Would you please make up your minds......




"In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal.
You need a reason to make something illegal."

-- Donna Moss, "West Wing"

And you accuse ME of watching too much TV?


You do, and that's why I used the quote.

Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't
surprise me that you have.


You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's
pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'.

That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told.


Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told
it's liberally slanted.


I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV.


yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog,
shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide.

Yet "West Wing" is any less shallow and crafted? It's Hollywood's
version of what THEY would like the government to be.

But which show stands a better chance of happening in the real world?

Dave
"Sandbagger"