Screwing Our Veterans Is Boundless.
http://cryptome.org/0001/screwing-vets.htm
cuhulin

On Jan 22, 7:20*am, Stevie Nichts wrote:
On Jan 22, wrote:

You imbecilic moron,

Yeah, because kindergarten insults do so much
to persuade others to your point of view, right?

Well, if who I'm dealing with is the equivalent of 5-year-old idiot,
then yeah, I'll speak in a language he can understand, because he
certainly won't have the capacity to understand anything much beyond
that.


why don't you read up on some good old-fashioned
American history and learn why the restrictions were put there in the
first place. *In fact, the justices could brush up on history as
well. *

They did: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the
freedom of speech, ..."

Free political speech is not free if the government can
dictate when and where you exercise it.

That's not history, it's just mumbo-jumbo that fails to take into
account the easy corruption of free speech in the form of campaign
finance by wealthy entities, as happened in the latter half of the
1800s and early 1900s which necessitated the Tillman Act passed under
Roosevelt's administration after Roosevelt himself was accused of
receiving large sums of cash from fat cat bigwigs in exchange for
favors.


in 2010. *This is going to lead to political shambles, just like
repealing the Glass Steagall Act a decade ago allowed Wall St. to run
amock and get the country in the mess it's in today.

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

You're short on history with that too, huh? Ultimately if he had
exercised his veto over it, it still would've been overriden by the
Republican-dominated Congress, so he knew there was no point in not
signing it. Recognizing it was a no-win situation for him, he
nevertheless still did what he could to ensure certain aspects of the
Act were made a bit more palatable for him to be able to sign it.

Rick Saunders wrote:


So the growing majorities in every major poll who
are fed up to the teeth with Obama's radical
leftist agenda are now "extremist fruitcakes",
troll-boy? LOL!

I see nothing resembling radical leftism. That just shows how far right
the media has become.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 1/25/10 14:56 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

And don't feed me the limpBALLS classic line about that the rich do pay
taxes.... most don't pay anymore then, and more then less then we do.
Proven fact

TOo true

The "they pay most of the taxes" is a false claim, misdirection, and
totally stupid way of trying to deflect the core principles



According to the IRS:


86% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.

97% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners.

50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners.



From the Wall Street Journal:

"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept
climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share
paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words,
despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of
taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.



How much of the wealth do these people control? What percentage of
their cash flow do they pay in taxes? You do realize that Obama wants
to restore the tax rate to the same as Reagan?

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:12:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?

They must, therefore, pay more.



Why?

On 1/26/10 08:15 , wrote:

You mean the tax rate on the wealthy that not one ever went broke
paying?



So that's your goal?

Why am I not surprised.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh

Were confederates, Southerners, Judge Roy Moore Liberals---or
conservatives?

Which supported Jim Crow---Liberals or conservatives?

Which party did conservatives leave after they introduced the Civil
Rights act?

The classical liberals, like the framers of the US Constitution were for
limited govt with enumerated powers. Today who is for limited govt the
conservative or the liberal? Your liberal/conservative comparison takes the
comparison out of context, I'm just putting it back into context ... Don't
try to hide behind the liberal label when it was the Democrats that
supported all the above you list ...

On Jan 25, 9:12*pm, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 1/25/10 19:48 , wrote:





On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:08:23 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
*wrote:

On 1/25/10 14:56 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), * wrote:

And don't feed me the limpBALLS classic line about that the rich do pay
taxes.... * most don't pay anymore then, and more then less then we do.
Proven fact

TOo true

The "they pay most of the taxes" is a false claim, misdirection, and
totally stupid way of trying to deflect the core principles

* *According to the IRS:

* *86% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of income
earners.

* *97% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 50% of income
earners.

* *50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 1% of income
earners.

* *From the Wall Street Journal:

* *"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept
climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The
share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other
words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw
their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of
income.

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.

* *So what?



Since they own 80% of all the wealth--I'd say they're getting off
cheap.

* *Thankfully, what you say isn't incumbent on the rest of us.

It already is, and has been for the last 29 years. One significant
measure of wealth, particularly for the average American, is personal
savings. Since Reagan took over and pushed through Reaganomics,
personal savings have steadily declined over the last 3 decades.
Looking at personal savings of the wealthy is pointless since they
have a variety of financial back-up plans always in action, from
varied investments to numerous personal assets to obscene salaries and
bonuses, all beyond that which is attainable by the average American,
so measuring their wealth is better measured in dollar income
thresholds.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ima...al_Savings.jpg

http://www.uscentrist.org/platform/docs/irs-490px.gif

Interesting, isn't it, the correlation between the decline of the
average American and the steep rise of the top .1% over the same
period of time since Reagan? And that's for *point* 1%, not 1%.
That's how few have benefited so greatly under the trickle-down
theory, only it seems to have kind of trickled up at everybody else's
expense.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:15:20 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh

Were confederates, Southerners, Judge Roy Moore Liberals---or
conservatives?

Which supported Jim Crow---Liberals or conservatives?

Which party did conservatives leave after they introduced the Civil
Rights act?

The classical liberals, like the framers of the US Constitution were for
limited govt with enumerated powers. Today who is for limited govt the
conservative or the liberal? Your liberal/conservative comparison takes
the
comparison out of context, I'm just putting it back into context ... Don't
try to hide behind the liberal label when it was the Democrats that
supported all the above you list ...



Classical liberals dealt with relationships of government and the
governed. We revolted because that relationship between us and the
government was "broken"

Everyone liberal or conservative has a relationship with government ... its
the nature of man and govt. Anytime there is a revolution one can say the
relationship is 'broken' ... the American revolution was no different.

The government(s) of Europe were generally princes and royalty, the
idea of "less government" cannot be applied to the present rationale
of the idiot loonytarians and conservatives--it's used as a rhetorical
propaganda.

Are you saying our US Constituton had an expiration date on it? ... '"less
govt" cannot be applied to the present rational..."
The Framers really didn't mean what they wrote in the US Constitution about
a limited govt??? ... "The powers not delegated to the US by the
Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively " ... this is untrue??? ... read Art I sect 8 of the US
Constitution.

Our Founders took (as an experiment) the notion that "rights" are not
given by princes and kings (or despots)---but from a "higher
power"--and instituted a "rule of law"--that certainly was setting a
lot of "government in motion"

It set NO 'lot of '"government in motion''' ... The Federal Govt role/powers
were limited and enumerated by the Constitution ... States were suppose to
do the most of the 'every day' governing of the people.

the "less government" isn't applicable because early 18th century was
rural, agrarian, and "government" was small out of lack of need. The
influx of millions of immigrants, the industrial revolution, westward
expansion finally created a mess because of "less government" (or
worse, government siding with wealth and industry)

The US Constitution CAN be changed ... don't give me that 'rule of law' when
the Constitution's limited powers are ignored. One of the reasons for that
"broken" relationship you write of above, between the American colonist and
Great Britian was "He (King George) has erected a multitude of New Offices,
and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their
substance." ... sounds like what people are complaining about today doesn't
it? ... classical liberal thought of the Framers isn't it? So its the
conservatives and not todays liberals that are on the side of the Framers
and many of todays Americans. Many Americans today have some of the same
grievances as listed in the Dec of Ind.

Your last sentence mixed "party label" and "ideology" (again) to
associate or infer something that isn't relevant

Of course its revelant ... todays liberal has nothing in common with the
Framers of the US Constitution ... todays liberal wants to centralize power
in the hands of the Fed Govt and have the people completely dependent. ...
healthcare, education, retirement etc from and dependent on the Fed Govt.
.... centralized power to control the people. The conservative is for
smaller govt and protection of individual rights. Today its the liberals
(Democrats) that are for centralized govt control while the Republicans
(conservatives) are for a more limited govt and less control. To the extent
that anyone still believes in the Constitution its the conservatives.

Conservative policy/ideology can adopted by any group---but the
policy, not the label it adopts is relevant

True, and the conservative believes in smaller and limited govt. ...

The major cause of most of our woes was "opposition" to change, from
the support of the crown, the support of slavery, to the opposition to
most all of the policy that made us great.

The above was classical liberalism and has nothing to do with todays
liberalism. Breaking away from Great Britian and freeing slaves was
classical liberalism which was for individual freedom. Today's liberal is
for central govt control ... the govt gives you healthcare, education,
retirement, gives tax money to favored businesses etc. ... central control
and not individual freedom.

You can call yourself a liberal, progressive or whatever else you want to
call yourself but in the end you are a Democrat who believes in collectivist
govt. control.