Crazy? Maybe, Maybe Not
I have a former associate who tells me that House and Senate staffers have been
talking to Wall Street insiders about developing a common strategy to merge
private sector retirement plans with the Social Security system.
Were you just looking for our feedback before you submitted this to the National Enquirer?
Meth can definitely make people do some odd things...Were you just looking for our feedback before you submitted this to the National Enquirer?
[quote=snaggletooth][quote=HymanRoth]Were you just looking for our
feedback before you submitted this to the National Enquirer? [/quote]
So, do you think that seizing retirement plans cannot happen, or are you simply not wanting to think about it?
I don’t agree with a lot of what Put says on these boards, but I think he is spot on with this sort of thinking. A mandatory 5% contribution to the government-run retirement plan? All the government is doing is deferring a huge payment to themselves. 401ks and other qualified plans are simply one of the biggest tax traps ever invented. And they have full control over how they are administered.
There is nothing in the tax code that states they cannot change the mandatory retirement age. There is nothing in the tax code that states they cannot create another excise tax on withdrawals from plans over a certain dollar amount. What the government has done is ensure they can change the rules whenever they want (and usually to their, as opposed to the people's) benefit.Meth can definitely make people do some odd things...[/quote][quote=snaggletooth][quote=HymanRoth]Were you just looking for our feedback before you submitted this to the National Enquirer?
So, do you think that seizing retirement plans cannot happen, or are you simply not wanting to think about it?
[/quote] Do I think it can happen? I guess anything is possible. Do I not want to think about it? Absolutely. I can't do anything about it. I have no control over it. I just do what is best with what I've got today.
Imagine what would happen if 59.5 was now 62 or 64 or 65. The govies could easily force early retirees to work a few extra years before tapping their retirement (without penalty). This would add billions to the SS coffers and keep people contributing to 401K’s during their highest earning years.
I could see that argument happening for one simple reason: Fewer and fewer bodies to take the place of the retiring workforce. Think about it…you have this tremendous amount of people starting to head into “retirement years” and fewer people to replace. What will the ave business do to attract fewer employees, raise wages.
I could see businesses lobbying for later retirement for their best workers AND having a way to rid themselves of the large 401k liability. They DON'T like having retirement plans that expose them to lawsuits. This will be the next lawsuit craze, sue IBM because they didn't do enough to make sure you made all the right decisions in your 401k and when you thought running those hypos with 12% returns would net you 1mil by retirment and it is just 330k...who is going to make up the gap...IBM...thats who.Put is absolutely right.
So he is opining that the surest way to preserve wealth in the coming Age of Obama is to not own a retirement plan--and to get out of them now. He further believes that no matter how onerous the tax ramifcations of an early withdrawal are they are still favorable to waking up one morning to hear that the evil troica of Obama, Pelosi and Reid orchestrated an overnight seizure of all retirement plans. This is already happening in Argentina. On a personal level, I'm about ready to throw in the towel and retire. I'm sick about what is happening to our country, the comming socialist regime and tired of being the Little Dutch Boy trying to plug up the holes in a ever changing regulatory and punitive environment. I'll probably hang in for another year or so, but I see "a bad moon arising" . Really really bad.[quote=babbling looney]Put is absolutely right.
So he is opining that the surest way to preserve wealth in the coming Age of Obama is to not own a retirement plan--and to get out of them now. He further believes that no matter how onerous the tax ramifcations of an early withdrawal are they are still favorable to waking up one morning to hear that the evil troica of Obama, Pelosi and Reid orchestrated an overnight seizure of all retirement plans. This is already happening in Argentina. On a personal level, I'm about ready to throw in the towel and retire. I'm sick about what is happening to our country, the comming socialist regime and tired of being the Little Dutch Boy trying to plug up the holes in a ever changing regulatory and punitive environment. I'll probably hang in for another year or so, but I see "a bad moon arising" . Really really bad. [/quote] Pardon my ignorance, but has there ever been a political leader or president as socialistic in the U.S. as what everyone here thinks we will be getting?NO. Obama takes the cake.
[quote=bspears]I could see that argument happening for one simple reason: Fewer and fewer bodies to take the place of the retiring workforce. Think about it…you have this tremendous amount of people starting to head into “retirement years” and fewer people to replace. What will the ave business do to attract fewer employees, raise wages.
I could see businesses lobbying for later retirement for their best workers AND having a way to rid themselves of the large 401k liability. They DON'T like having retirement plans that expose them to lawsuits. This will be the next lawsuit craze, sue IBM because they didn't do enough to make sure you made all the right decisions in your 401k and when you thought running those hypos with 12% returns would net you 1mil by retirment and it is just 330k...who is going to make up the gap...IBM...thats who. [/quote] I think we may see another "tipping point" in pension law coming soon, precisely for the reason above. After this bloodbath, and 10-year sideways market, I think lawmakers and pension experts are going to start questioning the conventional "new" wisdom that individuals can manage their own retirement portfolios. Despite all the warnings and education and tools available to 401K participants, most still just do their own thing - either way too conservative (like all in the "fixed" bucket) or way too aggressive (like all company stock or just picking all the smoking funds from last year). But what is even scarier, is that I have helped many clients balance their 401K's, and they still just got hammered (although they would have done fine through 2000-02).I’ve been a political junkie for many years and I can’t remember a worse candidate, other than maybe Jimmy Carter. As I’ve told many people, Obama will take us down a path we have NEVER experienced before. This will cause turmoil to our system on an unbelievable scale…THe socialist are becoming more free market and we are moving to a socialist model…heaven help us…blood will be shed…I can see the countries who HATE us licking their chops…ready to jump on us…to destroy our way of life…If his policies affect any industry…ours would have to be one that has the most to lose. We make great money, our clients like lower capital gains and 401k rollovers are our gold mines…
I'd like to be a little more optimistic. Isn't it possible that everyone has gotten the Y2K scare over Obama? Might he change his course to a more mainstream view once elected? Wouldn't some of the "smarter", more senior Democrats curtail the more socialistic ideas of Obama? There has to be some sensible Democrats...they aren't all socialists.I’ve been a political junkie for many years and I can’t remember a worse candidate, other than maybe Jimmy Carter. As I’ve told many people, Obama will take us down a path we have NEVER experienced before. This will cause turmoil to our system on an unbelievable scale…THe socialist are becoming more free market and we are moving to a socialist model…heaven help us…blood will be shed…I can see the countries who HATE us licking their chops…ready to jump on us…to destroy our way of life…If his policies affect any industry…ours would have to be one that has the most to lose. We make great money, our clients like lower capital gains and 401k rollovers are our gold mines…
I was talking to a friend who works inside the beltway for Nat’l Science Foundation and they are really worried that an an inner galactic SGR (soft gamma repeater) may go neutron star on us with a highly destructive GRB (Gamma Ray Burst). Apparently, according to my friend, the probability of this happening is inversely proportional to the republicans losing the executive branch in 2008. He said their observations have caused them to go to condition orange. They are even moving the plants inside! He said this trumps any concerns he had about Palin not even believing in GRBs. He’s voting for McCain.
You have some weird friends...I was talking to a friend who works inside the beltway for Nat’l Science Foundation and they are really worried that an an inner galactic SGR (soft gamma repeater) may go neutron star on us with a highly destructive GRB (Gamma Ray Burst). Apparently, according to my friend, the probability of this happening is inversely proportional to the republicans losing the executive branch in 2008. He said their observations have caused them to go to condition orange. They are even moving the plants inside! He said this trumps any concerns he had about Palin not even believing in GRBs. He’s voting for McCain.
FDR and the New Deal brought the same socialist dribble from the whining losers.
I'd like to be a little more optimistic. Isn't it possible that everyone has gotten the Y2K scare over Obama? Might he change his course to a more mainstream view once elected? Wouldn't some of the "smarter", more senior Democrats curtail the more socialistic ideas of Obama? There has to be some sensible Democrats...they aren't all socialists.[/quote] Sure, this is certainly possible and I expect that before four years are past, we'll find a fairly normal course of running the country. After all, at least most of the 435 members of congress are probably interested in re-election. Don't be surprised to see some negative (at least economically) legislation at the beginning of the next term as various social programs are introduced, and more bailouts are handed out, but eventually, the sheer numbers will force the government to revert to the mean. My advice is to ride this out. Like any other cycle, it won't last forever.[quote=bspears]I’ve been a political junkie for many years and I can’t remember a worse candidate, other than maybe Jimmy Carter. As I’ve told many people, Obama will take us down a path we have NEVER experienced before. This will cause turmoil to our system on an unbelievable scale…THe socialist are becoming more free market and we are moving to a socialist model…heaven help us…blood will be shed…I can see the countries who HATE us licking their chops…ready to jump on us…to destroy our way of life…If his policies affect any industry…ours would have to be one that has the most to lose. We make great money, our clients like lower capital gains and 401k rollovers are our gold mines…
[quote=BondGuy]I was talking to a friend who works inside the beltway for Nat’l Science Foundation and they are really worried that an an inner galactic SGR (soft gamma repeater) may go neutron star on us with a highly destructive GRB (Gamma Ray Burst). Apparently, according to my friend, the probability of this happening is inversely proportional to the republicans losing the executive branch in 2008. He said their observations have caused them to go to condition orange. They are even moving the plants inside! He said this trumps any concerns he had about Palin not even believing in GRBs. He’s voting for McCain.[/quote]
I am sure you have your DVR ready to tape the half hour Obama info commercial tomorrow night. Obama needs to keep up the propaganda because of all the free propaganda that the MSM is giving him isn’t enough to punch it in the end zone. Now he wants people to take the day off next Tuesday to vote…Take the day off…it takes 5 minutes to vote. Seems like something they do in Socialist countries.
We are in for a huge mess with these clowns in charge. (Obama, Biden, Frank, Pelosi, Dodd, Dean and God forbid…Al Franken).
Babs, you are way over the top on this. The country not only survived the most socialist leader in modern times, FDR, it thrived. You are looking at this the wrong way. Just think of how you can spend that check that Mr. Obama will be sending you.
Seriously, where you see nothing but "Bad moons", I see opportunity. If nothing else rebalance, take some loses, and DCA back in. All this is temporary, soon we'll be in a new day. New day, new crisis, new opportunity.The depression and bear market ran from 1929 to 1941....FDR did more to keep the country in a depression than he did to get it out of one...look it up...
[quote=bspears]
The depression and bear market ran from 1929 to
1941…FDR did more to keep the country in a depression than he did to
get it out of one…look it up…
Yep, but talk to a Keysian and they’ll wax poetically about what a warm and fuzzy idea FDR’s tax and spend policies were.
What the socialism of the 1930s did do for us is build basically all of
those rock buildings in the national parks as well as a two foot tall
rock wall for miles and miles and miles along old roads such as Route
66.
At least in those days a government check required you to do
something. It may be a “Make Work” task such as building a wall
alongside the road, or it may have been something worthwhile like
building a lodge at Yellowstone.
But at least it was making them do something. Today you can get on the dole and they’ll direct deposit for you.
Thank you FDR, thank you LBJ, thank you Jimmy Carter, thank you Bill Clinton.
We need a President Obma like we need a dose of syphlis.
As my wife and I were traveling south last week, she commented on why she couldn’t understand why they just don’t go to a flat tax that everyone pays. I told her if that would happen what would the two parties spar over…I’m going to f the rich vs I’m going to help the wealth builders…they’d have no favors to dole out.
Also, imagine how many people would lose their job if we had an easy tax system.
Remember in Idiocracy when the president stopped using Brawndo (a gatorade copy-cat) to water the crops? The stock fell 90% and over half the nation lost their jobs (everyone worked for Brawndo).
I imagine it would be similar to that.
Here’s a scary thought I heard recently.
If Obama does "tax the rich" and less than half of the population pays taxes, we could actually have an election where the president is elected 100% by people who pay no taxes (yes, I understand the electoral college, but you get the idea).[quote=BondGuy]Babs, you are way over the top on this. The country not only survived the most socialist leader in modern times, FDR, it thrived. You are looking at this the wrong way. Just think of how you can spend that check that Mr. Obama will be sending you.
Seriously, where you see nothing but "Bad moons", I see opportunity. If nothing else rebalance, take some loses, and DCA back in. All this is temporary, soon we'll be in a new day. New day, new crisis, new opportunity. [/quote] You mean that check from the money that they are already taking from me. Look...I don't mind paying taxes if there is a real return on my investment. Taxes are for the common good and things like infrastructure, military, police, fire depts etc. They can even be used to help some people in TEMPORARY dire straights like unemployment insurance and food stamps. The Democrats and Obama want to create a permanent underclass of welfare recipients and level the working class so they can keep power centralized and the people/sheeple sedated. Obama wants to confiscate the money that I and other small business owners, like myself, make and literally GIVE it in a cash rebate to someone who doesn't pay taxes. That is out and out socialism and perpetuates welfare mentality. Why the fuck (excuse my French) should I work my ass off, get an ulcer only to have my income taken from me. Where is the incentive to work......there isn't any and that is the point of the Socialist agenda. To keep us all dependent on the state and unmotivated to succeed is the plan. FDR set the country back by 10 years into a deeper depression than what would have been had they left well enough alone and drug the rest of the world into hell with him. The bad moon arising?. Civil unrest, resentment between people based on the confiscation of private property to give to Obama's chosen. Reparations to blacks for slavery over 140 years ago, for which most of us have zero connection and is really really going to piss people off. Civil disobedience and violence between peoples. Socialistic dogma being forced upon the children, negating the wishes of parents. Forced "community" service. Obama wants to social engineer and community organize the US. The economy is going to slow to a grinding halt by a Democrat generated depression through stupid economic policies, that will probably spread world wide creating even more unrest and possible wars. I personally think that the international incident that Biden hinted at is when Obama throws Israel under the bus and a nuclear even happens in the middle east. And Obama will do nothing or even side with the attackers. Mr. Dinner Jacket in Iran is already being pushed out of the picture for some reason. I don't think it is good. More? Possible nationalizing of various industries, (agriculture, oil production, mining, transportation) to spread the wealth around and then we spin into a Zimbabwe type cycle of inflation and food shortages. The refusal to build up infrastructure to bring oil, gas or coal to our industries and the sheer incompetence of the government run monopolies, will leave us at the mercy of countries who mean us no good. Short sighted economic policies leading to high inflation or even hyper inflation. All in the name of enacting Obama's socialistic wet dreams. Personally, I'm investing in 12 gauge shotgun shells, 22 cartridges, 30.06 shells and a Mormon size pantry. You won't catch me within 200 miles of any large city until this is over and I expect this downturn to last for at least 4 to 6 years. People who vote for Obama, like Put said, are too stupid to be allowed to live.I have a question for Bondguy. How much of your production do you donate to the underperformers in your office? After all, it is the patriotic thing to do.
To Babs post, if you think this country is racist now, wait until Osama start making reparations for slavery. This is not going to be pretty. Osama talks about civil unity, while his interviews and actions speak to the opposite.
[quote=Primo]
I have a question for Bondguy. How much of your production do you
donate to the underperformers in your office? After all, it is
the patriotic thing to do.
[/quote]
It’s humorous that Bond Guy is such a butt boy for huge government in
light of the fact that he makes his living selling bonds that are
designed to keep tax money away from the very government he so
slavishly loves.
Put, and I mean this in the most positive way possible, I disagree (we will leave it at that) with most of what you say, but on this issue we agree completely.
[quote=Primo]
To Babs post, if you think this country is racist now, wait until Osama
start making reparations for slavery. This is not going to be
pretty. Osama talks about civil unity, while his interviews and
actions speak to the opposite.
[/quote]
I can’t imagine The One bringing up the idea of reparations–however, I
can’t imagine him not signing such a law if Speaker Pelosi and Leader
Reid orchestrate one to send him.
Those who plan to vote for this guy because he’s going to be a unifying factor–THINK!
Hell, he’ll be lucky to live long enough to run for reelection because
he is such a divisive figure. He has never–as in NEVER–even
pretended to be bi-partisan, There is no more liberal
Senator. There is no less qualified empty suit ever to get a
major firm’s nomination, much less appear to be all but elected.
He based his entire candidacy on his opposition to the war–and morons
who have no idea who he was swooned. He was a back bench part
time state senator when the decisions to go to war were being
made. If he was against it it was what he muttered to himself
while taking a dump because nobody else was listening and he didn’t
have to cast a vote on it.
How about the promise to not raise your taxes. The deal is that
in 2001 and 2006 we had two tax reductions. They are sunsetted
for 2010, meaning they will simply expire. So it will not require
a presidential action to raise your taxes, all he has to do is do
nothing and your taxes will go up about 5% in 2010.
You experience a tax increase, but the liar from Illionois didn’t do it
to you. It’s like he’s saying, “I won’t rape you” knowing full
well he will watch you being raped by somebody else.
Thank you media for the most dishonest coverage of a presidential campaign in American history.
Don't forget that he will tell you what you want to hear when he thinks it will benefit him only to change course when it is in his best interest. Example #1: "I will take only publice funds if my opponent agrees to do the same". When he takes office, he will no longer need to lie. He can push his agenda without fear of reprisal due to the right being in the minority.[quote=Primo]
To Babs post, if you think this country is racist now, wait until Osama start making reparations for slavery. This is not going to be pretty. Osama talks about civil unity, while his interviews and actions speak to the opposite.
[/quote]
I can’t imagine The One bringing up the idea of reparations–however, I can’t imagine him not signing such a law if Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid orchestrate one to send him.
Those who plan to vote for this guy because he’s going to be a unifying factor–THINK!
Hell, he’ll be lucky to live long enough to run for reelection because he is such a divisive figure. He has never–as in NEVER–even pretended to be bi-partisan, There is no more liberal Senator. There is no less qualified empty suit ever to get a major firm’s nomination, much less appear to be all but elected.
He based his entire candidacy on his opposition to the war–and morons who have no idea who he was swooned. He was a back bench part time state senator when the decisions to go to war were being made. If he was against it it was what he muttered to himself while taking a dump because nobody else was listening and he didn’t have to cast a vote on it.
How about the promise to not raise your taxes. The deal is that in 2001 and 2006 we had two tax reductions. They are sunsetted for 2010, meaning they will simply expire. So it will not require a presidential action to raise your taxes, all he has to do is do nothing and your taxes will go up about 5% in 2010.
You experience a tax increase, but the liar from Illionois didn’t do it to you. It’s like he’s saying, “I won’t rape you” knowing full well he will watch you being raped by somebody else.
Thank you media for the most dishonest coverage of a presidential campaign in American history.
I agree with you here Put. This may be obvious to some of us here, but is unknown to the general public. I have a huge problem with how the Republicans have run this campaign. First, was McCain really the best man? Not in my opinion. Second, why hasn't he brought up some of these obvious things? It's not rocket science. You don't see him addressing this stuff. In other words, it's Obama's election to lose, therefore McCain needs to attack. Problem is that either he is lost or his advisors have run him into the ground.[quote=Primo]
To Babs post, if you think this country is racist now, wait until Osama start making reparations for slavery. This is not going to be pretty. Osama talks about civil unity, while his interviews and actions speak to the opposite.
[/quote]
I can’t imagine The One bringing up the idea of reparations–however, I can’t imagine him not signing such a law if Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid orchestrate one to send him.
Those who plan to vote for this guy because he’s going to be a unifying factor–THINK!
Hell, he’ll be lucky to live long enough to run for reelection because he is such a divisive figure. He has never–as in NEVER–even pretended to be bi-partisan, There is no more liberal Senator. There is no less qualified empty suit ever to get a major firm’s nomination, much less appear to be all but elected.
He based his entire candidacy on his opposition to the war–and morons who have no idea who he was swooned. He was a back bench part time state senator when the decisions to go to war were being made. If he was against it it was what he muttered to himself while taking a dump because nobody else was listening and he didn’t have to cast a vote on it.
How about the promise to not raise your taxes. The deal is that in 2001 and 2006 we had two tax reductions. They are sunsetted for 2010, meaning they will simply expire. So it will not require a presidential action to raise your taxes, all he has to do is do nothing and your taxes will go up about 5% in 2010.
You experience a tax increase, but the liar from Illionois didn’t do it to you. It’s like he’s saying, “I won’t rape you” knowing full well he will watch you being raped by somebody else.
Thank you media for the most dishonest coverage of a presidential campaign in American history.
[quote=Primo]
Don't forget that he will tell you what you want to hear when he thinks it will benefit him only to change course when it is in his best interest. Example #1: "I will take only publice funds if my opponent agrees to do the same". When he takes office, he will no longer need to lie. He can push his agenda without fear of reprisal due to the right being in the minority.[/quote]
He has the built in deflector, "You're only against his idea because you're a racist." Nobody will be able to question anything they do.
Babs has the right idea--just hole up somewhere as if it is going to be a four year hurricane.
Personally my wife and I may take off for Europe--we've talked about living over there for a few years and never got around to it. This may be the time.
[quote=snaggletooth]
I agree with you here Put. This may be obvious to some of us here, but is unknown to the general public. I have a huge problem with how the Republicans have run this campaign. First, was McCain really the best man? Not in my opinion. Second, why hasn't he brought up some of these obvious things? It's not rocket science. You don't see him addressing this stuff. In other words, it's Obama's election to lose, therefore McCain needs to attack. Problem is that either he is lost or his advisors have run him into the ground.[/quote]
Both parties fielded about the worst candidate they could. I had made the maximium contribution to Rudy and kept thinking that he and his advisors knew what they were doing betting everything on Florida. What a supreme dumb ass move.
On the Democrat side the anti-Clinton sentiment was so deep that the party wanted her to be defeated. In order to do that it was going to have to be another woman or a black candidate. There were no qualified women and there were no qualified blacks--so they chose a gifted speaker who was black and ran with him.
Hillary really screwed up by not contending in the caucus states. She also fell victim to a lot of mischief--I know people in several states who voted for Obama to do their part as an anti-Hillary voice. Those folks will NOT vote for him in the general elections, yet pollsters assume that they will because they are "registered Democrats" having voted in the Democrat primaries.
I am in the small school of thought that believes that the polls are meaningless. The pollsters are weighting their results based on assumptions drawn on the belief that there are huge numbers of new voters and that there was huge Democrat turnout in the primaries.
The new voters have proven to be mostly ACORN fraud and the huge Democrat turnout included millons of Republicans who were voting for Obama to screw with Hillary but who would never vote for Obama when it really mattered.
LImbaugh has been on the air screaming, "It's all about race." I agree, I think it's actually a referendum on if white people are still in charge of the United States and I think that at least 25% of the white Democrats are going to vote "Not so fast."
I know I sound crazy, and I know I could have egg all over my face--but I would not be at all surprised if the only electoral votes Obama wins are those from DC. I think there are that many bigots out here.
We'll have to wait to see. If McCain wins it will be a very long night for the media and a very good day for the Dow on Wednesday.
Both parties fielded about the worst candidate they could.
I have to disagree with this one. The Democrats have fielded a great candidate. The Republicans have fielded a terrible one. This election reminds me of Bush/Kerry. The Republicans were Pro-Bush. The Dems were anti-Bush. In this election, it's just the opposite. The Dems are Pro-Obama. The Republicans are Anti-Obama. It's awfully tough to win an election when your voters are anti-the other guy instead of pro-your guy. My point is that the Dems are excited about Obama, therefore, they have a good candidate. The Republicans are not excited about McCain, therefore, they have a bad candidate.[quote=Provocative Put] [quote=Primo]
Don't forget that he will tell you what you want to hear when he thinks it will benefit him only to change course when it is in his best interest. Example #1: "I will take only publice funds if my opponent agrees to do the same". When he takes office, he will no longer need to lie. He can push his agenda without fear of reprisal due to the right being in the minority.[/quote]
He has the built in deflector, "You're only against his idea because you're a racist." Nobody will be able to question anything they do.
Babs has the right idea--just hole up somewhere as if it is going to be a four year hurricane.
Personally my wife and I may take off for Europe--we've talked about living over there for a few years and never got around to it. This may be the time.
[/quote] Haha I love it. First you speak about people who hate America and now you have the balls to express a desire to leave the country (which you will never do). Probably the smartest, and most embarrassing, thing you have posted on this forum. And then the irony of picking Europe of all places, hahaha. What a joke.
I have an answer to this question. He makes half a mil in production, enough to justify hiring a new assistant in the branch that can answer the underperformers calls and justifty keeping the branch alive for the underperformers to have a seat they can sit on. You like?I have a question for Bondguy. How much of your production do you donate to the underperformers in your office? After all, it is the patriotic thing to do.
Wait wait wait...so you're using the term Osama and excluding yourself from the racist category on top of coming up with some hypothetical future scenario you have no basis to predict? I have a brilliant idea for you Primo, why not go work that crystal ball of yours to pick appropriate investments to help yuor clients before your family ends up on the street. This thread and it's posters are embarrassing. I often wonder how many of you would have the balls to say this stuff in public. Even more embarrassing that you think we live ina country where a "racist terrorist" can become senator/next president of the United States. I really need to limit my time reading this site.To Babs post, if you think this country is racist now, wait until Osama start making reparations for slavery. This is not going to be pretty. Osama talks about civil unity, while his interviews and actions speak to the opposite.
[quote=anabuhabkuss]
Haha I love it. First you speak about people who hate America and now you have the balls to express a desire to leave the country (which you will never do). Probably the smartest, and most embarrassing, thing you have posted on this forum. And then the irony of picking Europe of all places, hahaha. What a joke.[/quote]
Idiot, we would not live in Europe to escape the United States. We would live in Europe to enjoy living in Europe.
I've been married to an airline employee for close to forty years. We vacation in Europe, always have and always will. But time was always limited. Now it's not since we're both retired.
We envision an apartment in Salzburg where we can shoot off in any direction for a few days, come back, wash the clothes and take off again. Life is not a dress rehearsal.
That you're too dumb to be interested in what is around the bend or over the hill will cause you to be on your death bed wondering why you never lived in Europe for a few years.
Sometimes all one needs is a little shove to make a major change--having to endure Atlanta in the Age of Obama is reason to leave Atlanta.
Hate to burst your bubble, but I wasn’t born in the states and have lived the minority of my life here.
I would live as a peasant in Salzburg just to get a glimpse of the Salzburg festival every year (attended once). Beautiful place. Kudos on the choice. May I also recommend South of France...Marseille for instance? How about a Dubai or Kuwait even (maybe not, since that bubble is due for a burst before long)?[quote=anabuhabkuss]
Hate to burst your bubble, but I wasn’t born in the states and have lived the minority of my life here.
[/quote]
We spend Christmas in Salzburg if there is snow. If there's not we'll go elsewhere. Been doing that for years. Hasn't been snow in December since 2005--but in light of whats happening in New England today there is hope for Salzburg.
Don't much care for Marseille, but love Provence. Last spring we spent two weeks in an apartment overlooking the harbor at Casis and two weeks in a "Villa" just outside of Avignon.
France pretty much sucks compared to Switzerland, Austria Germany and The Benelux.
[quote=Provocative Put] [quote=anabuhabkuss]
Haha I love it. First you speak about people who hate America and now you have the balls to express a desire to leave the country (which you will never do). Probably the smartest, and most embarrassing, thing you have posted on this forum. And then the irony of picking Europe of all places, hahaha. What a joke.[/quote]
Idiot, we would not live in Europe to escape the United States. We would live in Europe to enjoy living in Europe.
I've been married to an airline employee for close to forty years. We vacation in Europe, always have and always will. But time was always limited. Now it's not since we're both retired.
We envision an apartment in Salzburg where we can shoot off in any direction for a few days, come back, wash the clothes and take off again. Life is not a dress rehearsal.
That you're too dumb to be interested in what is around the bend or over the hill will cause you to be on your death bed wondering why you never lived in Europe for a few years.
Sometimes all one needs is a little shove to make a major change--having to endure Atlanta in the Age of Obama is reason to leave Atlanta.
[/quote] Ireland is quite nice. The people speak English (sort of) and they have great beers and whiskey. The temperature is moderate and the taxes are low. Salzburg is also very beautiful, (my daughter spent a semester of college in Salzburg) but I suggest you also look at Portugal for the winters. A lovely country with interesting food and friendly happy people.
Even more embarrassing that you think we live ina country where a “racist terrorist” can become senator/next president of the United States.
No no no. You have the wrong emotion. It isn't embarrassing to think that we are about to elect a racist (look at the church he attended for 2 decades) who sympathizes with the enemies of the US. like Ayers and praises terrorists (I do not think that Obama is a terrorist) It is frightening to think that we are about to elect a man with a socialist agenda who is guaranteed to destroy our economy and put us at the utmost security risk. Almost as frightening as having Democrats in complete control of the country.Babs I wasn’t referencing your posts per se but I do appreciate your inside information on the conditions of our world in the foreseeable future.
Pardon my ignorance, but when we throw the terms "socialist" around are we talking about Palin or Obama here?[quote=anabuhabkuss]Babs I wasn’t referencing your posts per se but I do appreciate your inside information on the conditions of our world in the foreseeable future.
Pardon my ignorance, but when we throw the terms "socialist" around are we talking about Palin or Obama here? [/quote] Evidence that Put is right yet again. Too stupid to live.It’s unfortunate, and irrelevant, that you think that lol
Dave Letterman said something that was offbeat but that was funny and very true. He said years ago his brains would hurt over all the stupid people that surrounded him. 10, 30, 40 years passed and everyone was stupid until one day he stopped and had the courage to ask this one question: "What if I'm the idiot?" It's unfortunate that your inability to clarify, back any of your statements that were fed to you from FOX news or retort intellectually has driven you to resort to brown nose a man who admitteldy has spent the last 12 years calling people stupid on a message board. Your clients should be proud.[quote=anabuhabkuss]
Babs I wasn’t referencing your posts per se but I do appreciate your
inside information on the conditions of our world in the foreseeable
future.
[/quote]
Obama is a Marxist and he will destroy the financial services industry. If you're in this business and you vote for Obama you are too stupid to be allowed to live.
At 3:45 today the Dow was up a bit less than 300 points. By 4:00 it was down 75.
The catalyst for the decline was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid holding a joint press coverence announcing that they intend to engage in a strategy that the refer to as a "Ram Slam" as they shove socialism down the nation's throat in the first 100 days.
The intend to spend billions on "stimulus" which means nothing more than spending for spending's sake. They intend to shove through Universal Health Care. They intend to raise the capital gains tax, gift tax, inheritance tax and anything else they can raise.
THEY INTEND TO OUTLAW SECRET BALLOTS IN UNION ORGANIZING EFFORTS. Until now there were two steps in a unionizing effort. A thug would intimidate employees into signing a card calling for an election, but that election was secret and employees who had been intimidated into requesting the vote could vote no. The unions don't like that and the Democrats--union butt boys--are going to change it. In the very near future the union thugs can simply intimidate employees into signing the card, but the card won't be calling for a secret ballot it will be a vote for the union.
This society needs the coming socialism like we need a case of crablice.
[quote=anabuhabkuss]
DESTROY the financial services industry? **** me like everything in the past two years..scratch that, the past decade has been peachy keen, yeah?[/quote]
Do you figure you have an IQ higher than the room temperature?
Tell us, what about higher taxes and wild spending on social programs do you think will benefit the investor class.
You class warriors really shouldn't be in a business where you hate your clients and have no desire to join them.
Why don't you quit and become a community organizer so you can target your former emplooyer?
It's very difficult to understand how anybody can be so unmotivated that they are wanting government to care for them--but it's impossible to understand how anybody in the finanical community could possibly not support everything the GOP stands for.
What is something you think I believe that you do not?
According to The New York Post approximately $100 million of the
$150 million collected by Senator Obama last month was charged to
pre-paid debit cards that are not owned by anybod in particular.
In other words the contributions are almost certainly illegal.
And the morons in this country are going to vote for him for the Presidency.
For the first time in my life I am on the verge of being ashamed of my countrymen.
I have an answer to this question. He makes half a mil in production, enough to justify hiring a new assistant in the branch that can answer the underperformers calls and justifty keeping the branch alive for the underperformers to have a seat they can sit on. You like?[/quote] From your previous posts, you seem a little slow. Let me try again. I did not ask what expenses the haircut from his B/D covered, I asked how much in addition to the haircut did he donate to the lower producers. Osama keeps saying that people of means should pay more in taxes. He says this is only fair. My question is how much extra did he send to the IRS last year? If people in the top tax bracket paying higher rates is a core belief, why isn't he "doing his part"? Why does he own tax free bonds? Shouldn't he own bonds that are taxable? Biden is talking about taking pensions from "greedy wall streeters", he says they should not get to enjoy any standard of living in retirement because they caused this mess. I am not saying wall street is not partially responsible. However, it was the democrats who repealed Glass-Steagal. It was the democrats who encouraged Freddie and Fannie to give loans to unqualified buyers. They have responsibility in this also. If this is the standard upon which pensions are taken away, Biden should offer up his as well. Buffet rails that his secretary pays a higher marginal rate than he does. Why is this? Because she is paid regular income, while he pays himself in dividends. If this is such an injustice, why doesn't he just pay himself in regular income? He also says the estate tax is necessary, however when he dies, not one penny of his massive fortune will go to the government. If any of these people did with their own money what they say you should do with yours, I would at least respect them. Agree, no. Respect, yes. You like?[quote=Primo]I have a question for Bondguy. How much of your production do you donate to the underperformers in your office? After all, it is the patriotic thing to do.
Osama has crossed $600mm in contributions. According to the One himself, most came from average Americans, middle class Americans. We are in tough economic times. Wouldn’t this money be better off in the pockets of the oppressed? If Osama had followed through with his promise to only take public funds, this money would still be where it belonged. But then he discovered he could raise money, so it did what was convenient. What happens when he finds out that taxing the upper 5% will not cover his spending programs? Who is left? The middle class. He will do what is in his best interest to push his agenda without regard to past promises.
Biden talks about “fairness” and that it’s “patriotic” to pay
taxes. Yet his tax returns for the last ten years reveal that he
donated a total of $3,600 to all charities and churches that he
supports. Not per year–in ten years. $360 per year, less
than a dollar a day and he’s a US Senator.
What the Democrats–which is American for Socialsts–believe is in an
odd form of charity. They want you to give them your money so
they can give it to whomever they want to and get the credit–meanwhile
they give none of their own money.
Biden is a tax leech. He sends virutally nothing to the
government and accepts large direct doposits from the government.
The reality is so does anybody who is employed by government—they’re
all leeches on society.
yea, obama is going to reign forever. let’s all quit right now! how stupid are you. obama will move to the right just like clinton did you stupid split tail!!!
Primo
You agreeing with PUT? Considering you're one of the pack that follows him around this site from thread to thread like a lost puppy, kissing his ass here- a little two faced? Patriotic? In the context you used, a very poor word choice. Were you tired when you posted? I don't consider helping patriotic, i just look at it as the right thing to do. Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I'm that person who can help. So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn't it? It's tough for you because it's a stage in life called self actualization. You're not there yet. Your still in survival mode, trying to figure out how to get beyond the hampster wheel. And from I read, you're none too happy about it either. Maybe someday you'll get to the point where self interest takes a back seat and you can help people as well. It's a worthy goal. As for selling tax free bonds, this seems to be a concept that you and i guess Put are having some trouble with. So i'll help you out - It's a simple business concept. Taxes are good for my business-very good! And helping the rich legally minimize those taxes is good for my business. It's good for them as well. ANNNNNNND helping finance worthy projects by raising money to fund those projects isn't a bad thing to get paid for either. After-all, even you would want a safe school building for your kids. So you see, I'm the guy who helps your town build that school. Without me and others like me it ain't gonna happen. Just a cog in a big machine, but it's all good. So, no worries! Obama gets elected my business just gets bigger. Put- primo -please tell me you didn't miss that. I know Put is sharper than that.[quote=BondGuy]
Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I'm that person who can help. So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn't it?<>
[/quote]
Not a tough concept at all. The decent thing to do
would be for you to make huge charitable contributions instead of
demanding that Primo give you his money so you can feel good giving it
away.
Boys and girls. There is a subset in the industry–whores who
sell muni bonds to unsuspecting investors and very small banks who are
not being serviced by the reputable firms.
Years ago they were almost universally heaquartered in Memphis and were
called, “The Memphis Bond Daddies.” They stayed in power by
bribing the governor and other officials–it was just “understood” that
they would be allowed to operate in Memphis.
In the early 1980s a new, dynamic, governor was elected in
Arkansas. He wanted the bond business to be headquartered in
Little Rock so he personally called on the main players in Memphis and
let it be known that he understood how the game was played and would be
even more cooperative than the Governors of Tennessee had been to that
point.
Almost lock stock and barrell the Memphis Bond Daddies moved down the road and became “The Little Rock Bond Bandits.”
My younger brother–I’ve talked about him already, a bank
president–tells great stories of who the bond whores from Little Rock
would call him every week–at almost precisely the same time of day
every Monday. His bank was in a town that begins with the letter
A and the bond whores were working the banker’s directory in
alphabetical order.
In the heyday of the Bond Bandits there was a firm in Little Rock
called, “Delta Securities and LImosuine Service.” Honest.
</>
[quote=BondGuy]Primo
You agreeing with PUT? There have been many times I have disagreed with Put, and I have stated so a number of times. I agree with him on this issue. Considering you're one of the pack that follows him around this site from thread to thread I comment on the thread I am interested in, I am not following anyone. like a lost puppy, kissing his ass here- a little two faced? Patriotic? Biden said it was patriotic for people in the top tax brackets to pay even more, even though the top 5% of earners pay more than 75% of the nut. In the context you used, a very poor word choice. Were you tired when you posted? I don't consider helping patriotic, i just look at it as the right thing to do. I agree with you 100%. What I don't agree with is someone telling me where my charity dollars are spent. I think that should be my choice. Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I'm that person who can help. So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn't it? It's tough for you because it's a stage in life called self actualization. You're not there yet. Your still in survival mode, trying to figure out how to get beyond the hampster wheel. Haha!!!!And from I read, you're none too happy about it either. Maybe someday you'll get to the point where self interest takes a back seat and you can help people as well. It's a worthy goal. As for selling tax free bonds, I have nothing against selling tax free bonds. I have never stated this anywhere. I am curious why someone who feels others in the same tax bracket should contribute more to those behind him so they can get a taste, then buys tax free bonds. Seems if taxes are a good idea, Osama would own taxable bonds and contribute extra to the IRS each year. If helping the little guy was such a priority, maybe $100 a month to his brother would be appropriate. Just a thought. this seems to be a concept that you and i guess Put are having some trouble with. So i'll help you out - It's a simple business concept. Taxes are good for my business-very good! And helping the rich legally minimize those taxes is good for my business. It's good for them as well. ANNNNNNND helping finance worthy projects by raising money to fund those projects isn't a bad thing to get paid for either. After-all, even you would want a safe school building for your kids. So you see, I'm the guy who helps your town build that school. Without me and others like me it ain't gonna happen. Just a cog in a big machine, but it's all good. So, no worries! Obama gets elected my business just gets bigger. Put- primo -please tell me you didn't miss that. I know Put is sharper than that. [/quote]Primo, you’re question was downright stupid and unrealistic to begin with. You took my response too literally and for face value and ignored my point. I wouldn’t be throwing big words like “slow” around.
You know, the sad thing is, I've seen that kind of miserly giving from politicians before and it pisses me off. Last year alone, I and my wife gave close to twenty grand in one year and I'll bet money that Biden makes more than I do. What a complete cheap-ass. The only thing I can say in his defense is that he's far from alone when it comes to politicians, (and doctors and lawyers for that matter). They have the resources to make a difference and all they do is spout empty words. On the flip side, I have a client couple with a household income in the low $60K range and they donate $10K a year according to their tax return, have zero debt and half a million toward retirement...in their 40's. Biden and those like-minded blowhards should be ashamed of themselves.Biden talks about “fairness” and that it’s “patriotic” to pay taxes. Yet his tax returns for the last ten years reveal that he donated a total of $3,600 to all charities and churches that he supports. Not per year–in ten years. $360 per year, less than a dollar a day and he’s a US Senator.
Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I’m that person who can help. So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn’t it?
That isn't a tough concept at all. It's called charity and is a very good thing. What Obama is proposing is to take money from people who have earned without their permission (called robbery in other circumstances) for the sheer purpose of giving it literally in a cash form to people who for what ever reason, haven't earned the money because he somehow feels that they are more worthy of the money than the man or woman who worked for it. This is socialism, pure and simple. What next? Take your house because it is too big and somebody else might be more worthy of that space. Your car? Your savings? Your 401K....oh wait.....they are already proposing this. Anyone who votes for Obama is an idiot and anyone who is a financial advisor and does so is a double idiot.[quote=babbling looney]Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I’m that person who can help. So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn’t it?
That isn't a tough concept at all. It's called charity and is a very good thing. What Obama is proposing is to take money from people who have earned without their permission (called robbery in other circumstances) for the sheer purpose of giving it literally in a cash form to people who for what ever reason, haven't earned the money because he somehow feels that they are more worthy of the money than the man or woman who worked for it. This is socialism, pure and simple. What next? Take your house because it is too big and somebody else might be more worthy of that space. Your car? Your savings? Your 401K....oh wait.....they are already proposing this. Anyone who votes for Obama is an idiot and anyone who is a financial advisor and does so is a double idiot.[/quote] Ignoring your butchering of the English language for a second, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this article on newsweek. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/27/barack-the-redistributor.aspx In particular: [quote]But characterizing Obama's plan to tax the nation's top earners at 39 percent instead of 36 percent as socialist is absurd. Dwight Eisenhower taxed top earners at 91 percent. Richard Nixon taxed them at more than 50 percent. Even Ronald Reagan didn't lower the top marginal rate to less than 50 percent until the last two years of his second term. Were these Republicans secret socialists, too? [/quote] and[quote]Deep down, I suspect McCain knows that Obama isn't really a socialist. Why? Because he once sounded a lot like his rival on taxes. During the 2000 campaign, for example, a young woman asked McCain why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” "Look, here's what I really believe," he added. "That when you are--when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." He soon backed up his words with action. After Bush was elected, McCain told Congress that he was disappointed by the president's plan to "cut the top tax rate of 39.6 percent to 36 percent." When it came time for a vote, the Arizonan stood on the Senate floor and announced that "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." Unless McCain was a socialist in 2000 and 2001, Obama isn't a socialist now.[/quote]
Would you also be kind enough to point out, with clear and concise evidence because surely your statements are not baseless and delusional rants, how you justify this: [quote=babbling looney]Take your house because it is too big and somebody else might be more worthy of that space. Your car? Your savings? Your 401K....oh wait.....they are already proposing this.[/quote] Thanks looney.Oh and I would also like to know how a $700b plan to “rescue” banks isn’t socialism (aside from the hope that profits could theoritically be made later on) and how an economic “stimulis plan” isn’t socialist either considering both were signed by the leader of the republican party and one was even pushed heavily and then denied by the GOP.
I would also like to know where the GOP got their $150,000 for Palin's clothesAnabuh-
Please don’t take this the wrong way, I am just curious as I think you said you were not born in the U.S.
Are you U.S. citizen? If so, How long from the time you arrived in the U.S. did it take you to become a U.S. citizen? Also, how many U.S. Presidential elections have you voted in. Have you ever voted in other countries? Which ones?
“We’re not just gonna concede to three big oil companies of this monopoly—Exxon, B.P., ConocoPhillips—and beg them to do this for Alaska,” Palin told me last month in Juneau. “We’re gonna say, ‘O.K., this is so economic that we don’t have to incentivize you to build this. In fact, this has got to be a mutually beneficial partnership here as we build it. We’re gonna lay out Alaska’s must-haves. Parameters are gonna be set, rules are gonna be laid out, a law will encompass what it is that Alaska needs to protect our sovereignty, to insure it’s jobs first for Alaskans, and in-state use of gas’ ”—her list went on. In the past, she said, “Alaska was conceding too much, and chipping away at our sovereignty. And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” And she said, “Our state constitution—it lays it out for me, how I’m to conduct business with resource development here as the state C.E.O. It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.”
Alaska is sometimes described as America’s socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources—an arrangement that allows permanent residents to collect a dividend on the state’s oil royalties. It has been Palin’s good fortune to govern the state at a time of record oil prices, which means record dividend checks: two thousand dollars for every Alaskan. And because high oil prices also mean staggering heating bills in such a cold place—and because it’s always good politics to give money to voters—Palin got the legislature this year to send an extra twelve hundred dollars to every Alaskan man, woman, and child.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/22/080922fa_fact_gourevitch?printable=trueJust so we’re all clear:
Historical Marginal Tax Rates
Thanks gvf. Things were tough when we had 39.6, yeah? Man the 90s, who would want to relive those days :’(
Indy - Your clients, are they giving that money to a church?
I find it very telling that you think my question was stupid and unrealistic when you support a candidate that is proposing this very thing in his tax plan. Taking money away from the successful to support the not so successful.Primo, you’re question was downright stupid and unrealistic to begin with. You took my response too literally and for face value and ignored my point. I wouldn’t be throwing big words like “slow” around.
[quote=anabuhabkuss][quote=babbling looney]Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I’m that person who can help. So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn’t it?
That isn't a tough concept at all. It's called charity and is a very good thing. What Obama is proposing is to take money from people who have earned without their permission (called robbery in other circumstances) for the sheer purpose of giving it literally in a cash form to people who for what ever reason, haven't earned the money because he somehow feels that they are more worthy of the money than the man or woman who worked for it. This is socialism, pure and simple. What next? Take your house because it is too big and somebody else might be more worthy of that space. Your car? Your savings? Your 401K....oh wait.....they are already proposing this. Anyone who votes for Obama is an idiot and anyone who is a financial advisor and does so is a double idiot.[/quote] Ignoring your butchering of the English language for a second, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this article on newsweek. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/27/barack-the-redistributor.aspx In particular: [quote]But characterizing Obama's plan to tax the nation's top earners at 39 percent instead of 36 percent as socialist is absurd. Dwight Eisenhower taxed top earners at 91 percent. Richard Nixon taxed them at more than 50 percent. Even Ronald Reagan didn't lower the top marginal rate to less than 50 percent until the last two years of his second term.No but he did cut the top marginal rate by almost 30% 1 year in. Guess what, tax revenues went up!!!!. So he lower them again at the end of his term. 70% down to 28% Were these Republicans secret socialists, too? [/quote] and[quote]Deep down, I suspect McCain knows that Obama isn't really a socialist. Why? Because he once sounded a lot like his rival on taxes. During the 2000 campaign, for example, a young woman asked McCain why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” "Look, here's what I really believe," he added. "That when you are--when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." He soon backed up his words with action. After Bush was elected, McCain told Congress that he was disappointed by the president's plan to "cut the top tax rate of 39.6 percent to 36 percent." When it came time for a vote, the Arizonan stood on the Senate floor and announced that "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." Unless McCain was a socialist in 2000 and 2001, Obama isn't a socialist now.[/quote] Osama is being called a socialist because he said on camera "we need to spread the wealth around." That is a socialistic comment. Also, have you listened to his 2001 radio interview where he says the Warren court "WAS NOT RADICAL ENOUGH!!!" He then laid out a plan for reparation to minorities. He is not saying this now. Wonder why? May not be convenient until after he gets into office.
Would you also be kind enough to point out, with clear and concise evidence because surely your statements are not baseless and delusional rants, how you justify this: [quote=babbling looney]Take your house because it is too big and somebody else might be more worthy of that space. Your car? Your savings? Your 401K....oh wait.....they are already proposing this.[/quote]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html Thanks looney.[/quote]
Just listened to the Eaton Vance election conference call today, speaker was Stan Collender, Managing Director, Qorvis Communications, expert on
congressional budget processes and federal initiatives.
Main points:
Tax hikes aren’t coming before the economy comes back. Late 2009 is a real possibility. Probably won’t be above the previous 39.6%. Republicans won’t want to go higher, and if a democratic congress votes for a compromise, say 38%, the president won’t veto it for obvious reasons. A democratic president is in the same position; a likely compromise.
If not in 2009, by 2010 we’ll have some serious problems with our debt, and the fear of interest rates surging based on international demand drop for US Debt will likely force us into higher rates (remember when a lowly Korean official made the off-hand comment that they wanted to diversify their debt?). They have in the past, applied higher rates retroactively (changed the law in October of 2008, to apply since January, for example).
Also, look for a $100 billion cut in the federal budget, democrat or republican.
Look for increases in cap gains, and modification of the estate tax in 2009. They won’t let it go back to 0.
SS is expected to go boom in 2041, so no changes expected until 2040
Medicare goes bust in 2019, but very small chance of getting taken care of unless Obama can really reform the whole health care system, again, not likely.
Pelosi’s 401k proposed changes won’t happen - it just won’t. Repeat: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Before taxes get addressed, look out for a Sarbanes-Oxley like bill that will address financial services.
Look at what happened to tax rates leading up to the 90's. They went down? No way! This was positive? No way! The issue with your post is Clinton did not take office until 1993. The economic stampede was well underway. GDP per person was $12 in 1950, $37 in 2007 inflation adjusted. How could this be with the government lowering taxes on the rich. Might it be that the top earners spend the most money in our consumer driven economy? Or maybe the top earners invest that money into businesses, employing the middle class? Your statement about the 90's confirms what you are against. When congress passes a new tax law, be it a cut or raise, it takes time for the effect to be felt. Clinton enjoyed the success started by Reagan and was more than happy to take credit. I think the most important fact that is being missed is raises taxes on the top 5% of earners is that it is an indirect tax on the middle class. Businesses respond to higher taxes by raising prices or cutting expenses (jobs). Individuals have less free cash to spend, causing sales to drop, leading businesses to raise prices or cut expenses. Raising the top rate is simply a tax raise on the middle class they will thank you for.Thanks gvf. Things were tough when we had 39.6, yeah? Man the 90s, who would want to relive those days
Pelosi’s 401k proposed changes won’t happen - it just won’t. Repeat: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
It is scary enough that they are talking about it. If it were to ever get beyond the "what do you think of this idea" stage, the market's downturn would make 1929 feel like a warm fuzzy sweater.I find it very telling that you think my question was stupid and unrealistic when you support a candidate that is proposing this very thing in his tax plan. Taking money away from the successful to support the not so successful.[/quote] I never told you which candidate I was supporting did I? And since when does someone making less than $250,000 constitute "not so successful" may I ask? Define "successful". Would you categorize a $250k earner who hasn't a dime to their name net the two benz and 4000 sq ft home payments "fully" succesful vs the "not so successful"? How cool that we successful people all decided to waste our f'n time on registeredrep forums[quote=anabuhabkuss]Primo, you’re question was downright stupid and unrealistic to begin with. You took my response too literally and for face value and ignored my point. I wouldn’t be throwing big words like “slow” around.
Where are you coming up with this aside from just looking at a chart?Clinton enjoyed the success started by Reagan and was more than happy to take credit.
I find it very telling that you think my question was stupid and unrealistic when you support a candidate that is proposing this very thing in his tax plan. Taking money away from the successful to support the not so successful.[/quote] I never told you which candidate I was supporting did I?[/quote] Not to be rude, but you're a financial advisor. I'll put my faith in a candidate who has Colin Powell's (someone who has really challenged the GOP) ear rather than someone who doesn't (ie. You, GOP, girl working at the GAP, etc). Seemed obvious.[quote=Primo][quote=anabuhabkuss]Primo, you’re question was downright stupid and unrealistic to begin with. You took my response too literally and for face value and ignored my point. I wouldn’t be throwing big words like “slow” around.
Where are you coming up with this aside from just looking at a chart?[/quote] The same place as you when you commented about the 90's.[quote=primo]Clinton enjoyed the success started by Reagan and was more than happy to take credit.
Wasting time here with a bunch of baffoons voting for, who I believe, to be the right person to become the next president of the United States by distorting facts and choosing delusional reasons to justify their reason to do so.
Much like the old lady who said she was voting for McCain because Obama was Arab.A good part of that, yes, but not nearly all of it, IIRC,Indy - Your clients, are they giving that money to a church?
[quote=anabuhabkuss]
Wasting time here with a bunch of baffoons voting for, who I believe, to be the right person to become the next president of the United States by distorting facts and choosing delusional reasons to justify their reason to do so.
Much like the old lady who said she was voting for McCain because Obama was Arab. [/quote] Wow, a 180 degree turn.I am in Texas, at the retirement home where my parents live. They
charge $5,000 per month for a one bedroom place–this is not for the
poor and downtrodden.
My father is the president of the resident board of directors and asked
me to come out here to help him conduct a meeting that focused on them
filling out absentee ballots. We did that yesterday and I
mailed them to the county yesterday evening–they’ll be delivered today.
Nobody, well except me, in the room was younger than 85 and several of
them are very opinionated–and they “debated” the pros and cons of the
candidates.
I mailed 52 ballots. I dont’ know with 100% certainty, but I
believe there were 49 for McCain and 3 for who was described as "that
black fellow with the funny name."
Among the debate points were the “He’s an Ay Rab.” One old guy
even muttered in less than a whisper, "I ain’t never not voted for a
Democrat, but I ain’t voting for no sand N-word."
Several heads nodded in agreement. You have to remember, this is
the World War II generation and it’s in the South. Many of them
are yellow dog democrats, “I’d vote for a Yellow Dog as long as he’s a
Democrat” is a famous line from somebody like Huey Long.
But not true this time.
The only time I talked was to explain why I thought it was important to
vote for Senator Cornyn (Sp?) because of the danger of a veto proof
Senate. Everybody–even the yellow dogs–agreed with that and
voted GOP for Senate.
As we were leaving, “The Multipurpose Room” some old guy wearing a
baseball cap that said “WW-II Veteran” on it came up to me to thank me
for being there, then added, "Don’t you just want to beat that Pelosi
woman with a stick?"
I grinned and said, “Or two sticks.” He laughed and wandered away on his walker.
They really were the greatest generation.
[quote=Provocative Put]They really were the greatest generation.[/quote]
One of the few things on which I agree with you 100%, putsy. We owe them a debt that we can never repay.
Unfortunately, I fear our children will one day be saying something similar about us, but it will be an entirely different type of debt that that cannot be repaid, but somehow must be anyway.
Exactly how much does Racism cost?One of the few things on which I agree with you 100%, putsy. We owe them a debt that we can never repay.
Exactly how much does Racism cost? [/quote][quote=morphius]One of the few things on which I agree with you 100%, putsy. We owe them a debt that we can never repay.
This idiotic retort is only understandable in the light of this earlier post:
[quote=anabuhabkuss]Hate to burst your bubble, but I wasn't born in the states and have lived the minority of my life here. [/quote]
Perhaps if your parents or grandparents had been the ones who suffered and sacrificed like those you criticize to preserve freedom for future generations across the globe - including no doubt those in whatever country you were born and spent the majority of your life - your smug comments critical of those heroes would carry more weight.
As it is, your comments speak much more loudly about your shortcomings than theirs.
Morf, so being a veteran of WW2 buys a person a pass on being a racist?
Morf, there's another thread on rr forums with some blantant racist comments. Not to my liking, but at least those posters aren't being disingenuous like many here are. The same could be said for Putsy's senior citizen's. At least they're honest. Still, they don't get a free pass.
I took ana's comment as an accurate read. Oh, and by the way, since it seems to matter, born in Hollywood Florida, son of a ww2 vet, grandson of a WW2 vet.BG,
Had I intended to say I agree with the comments uttered by a couple of individuals that putsy mentioned, I would have quoted those comments. I didn’t do that.
Instead, I simply quoted putsy’s reference to the well known title from Brokaws’ book, “The Greatest Generation,” and noted that I agreed 100% with the statement that I was quoting. That is, after all, the purpose of quoting a specific sentence rather than an entire post.
If you and ana want to label that entire magnificent generation as “racist” because of the purported comments of a few, you go ahead - it is your right as an American … a right that was preserved for you largely through the courage and sacrifice of those such as you dismiss as "racists."
I’m content instead to continue honoring them with “the greatest generation” label, despite the obvious rreality that not all of them, individually, were - or are - perfect. If we and the generations that follow in their footsteps turn out to be half the men and women that they have proven themselves to be, we should consider ourselves blessed.
Morph, let me clear it up for you. Putsy framed the greatest generation with one of their most negative traits- Racism. For whatever reason, he felt compelled to tell us a story of the racist in the nursing home voting for the white guy. Then called them The Greatest Generation. He didn’t wax on about them saving us from tyranny.
You agreed with him, that they were the greatest generation. In context, regardless of what you meant, it appears that you agreed with the racist atribute putsy hung on them. That's the way I read it, and apparently the way ana read it as well. Ana's comment to you was addressing the racist bent the thread had taken. By calling his comment an idiotic retort, in my view, you came off as defending the racist comments. And that's what I responded to. You can claim the high road as much as you'd like regarding the greatest generation. We all agree they saved us and deserve more than we can ever hope to repay. However, Put's comments serve to remind us that they were far from perfect, and there are some traits they passed down to us that aren't so noble. Honestly, after i read Put's post i considered it too toxic to touch and figured the group would let it sit. Wrong again.[quote=BondGuy]Morph, let me clear it up for you. Putsy framed the greatest generation with one of their most negative traits- Racism. For whatever reason, he felt compelled to tell us a story of the racist in the nursing home voting for the white guy. Then called them The Greatest Generation. He didn’t wax on about them saving us from tyranny.
You agreed with him, that they were the greatest generation. In context, regardless of what you meant, it appears that you agreed with the racist atribute putsy hung on them. That's the way I read it, and apparently the way ana read it as well. Ana's comment to you was addressing the racist bent the thread had taken. By calling his comment an idiotic retort, in my view, you came off as defending the racist comments. And that's what I responded to. You can claim the high road as much as you'd like regarding the greatest generation. We all agree they saved us and deserve more than we can ever hope to repay. However, Put's comments serve to remind us that they were far from perfect, and there are some traits they passed down to us that aren't so noble. Honestly, after i read Put's post i considered it too toxic to touch and figured the group would let it sit. Wrong again. [/quote] I am a racist. I hate the stupid race. I could care less if they are black, white, green or blue, I cannot stand stupid people. If an African-American calls the republican candidate "McBush", is that a racist comment? If I (caucasian) call the democratic candidate "Osama", is that racism? Using racism as a method of deflection to avoid answering any tough question posed to him diminishes Obama in my eyes. Belonging to a church that in their covenants lists "an undying loyalty to AFRICA" diminishes Obama in my eyes. Wanting to have the government take over health care diminishes Obama in my eyes. Pandering diminishes Obama in my eyes. Allowing partial birth legislation to die in committee diminishes Obama in my eyes. Preaching racial unity while promoting class warfare (which is a backdoor attempt against racial unity, just listen to the 2001 radio interview on youtube) diminishes Obama in my eyes. If he were white, I would feel exactly the same way.Primo, I agree with the first sentence in your post. The rest is bullshit. You’re the guy who tried to pass off the Obama muslim crap as fact. If nothing else, you are racist against muslims.
As for your rantings here, you pick and choose to fit your agenda. Everything you post is fact taken out of context, misfact, or is completely untrue. For example that post from a month ago misquoting passages from Obama's books. Your history of posting misfacts to fit your agenda gives you zero cred. It doesn't do much to help you out in the integrity department either. And spelling Obama's name as osama isn't racist, it's just dishonest. A clever way to make the false Obama -terrorist connection stick in the brains of the dolts you hope will make a difference next tuesday. On the other hand, McCain proudly said he had voted with Bush over 90% of the time. Yeah i know, different times, but only now with Bush's stock in the crapper, is John trying to distance himself. McBush isn't racist, or dishonest. just a clever way to make a fact stick. Bush and McCain have the same record, or nearly so. See the difference, Obama's camp is using facts and McCain's supporters are using lies. And still you are with the Mccain guys. i don't get it? And i don't want to.[quote=BondGuy]Primo, I agree with the first sentence in your post.Gotta start somewhere. The rest is bullshit. You’re the guy who tried to pass off the Obama muslim crap as fact. Go back and reread the thread, I thought we had this worked out. Of course, I wouldn’t want something like the truth to get in the way of one of your diatribes. If nothing else, you are racist against muslims. Just the ones that want to kill me. Of course, due to the fact that I am part of a racially mixed family, there are some bald white guys I also would be considered racist against using your definition.
As for your rantings here, you pick and choose to fit your agenda. Everything you post is fact taken out of context, misfact, or is completely untrue. Disprove one, just one thing from my previous post. For example that post from a month ago misquoting passages from Obama's books. Your history of posting misfacts to fit your agenda gives you zero cred. It doesn't do much to help you out in the integrity department either. And your posts reflect unbiased opinions and facts? Pot/kettle. And spelling Obama's name as osama isn't racist, it's just dishonest. Or, it rhymes with another gentlemen I do not particularly care for. The fact that you associate it with being a muslim, and associate muslims with terrorists says more about you than me. The proper spelling of his name would accomplish the same thing. Who is the racist? A clever way to make the false Obama -terrorist connection stick in the brains of the dolts So only dolts will vote for someone other than Obama? I think there are substantial numbers of people who will vote for each candidate for less than intelligent reasons. you hope will make a difference next tuesday. On the other hand, McCain proudly said he had voted with Bush over 90% of the time. Yeah i know, different times, but only now with Bush's stock in the crapper, is John trying to distance himself. As Obama distanced himself from Wright? The primary difference is McCain dropped it. Obama just keeps hammering the message. BTW, and please answer this question, do you honestly believe that a man Obama called a mentor, a life long friend, the man who married him, and presided over the church he belonged to made the "God damn America" and "the government created AIDS to kill the black man" comments only once? And only when Obama was not in attendance? He never said anything remotely similar in all those Sunday sermons. "I wasn't there" is not the answer I am looking for, I want your opinion. McBush isn't racist, Of course not, McCain is white. You can't be the victim of racism if you are white. or dishonest. just a clever way to make a fact stick. Bush and McCain have the same record, or nearly so. See the difference, Obama's camp is using facts But which "facts" are they using? As the economy is the #1 issue in this election according to the polls, let's ask a few questions. What was the economy like when Bush took office? Oh crap is was slowing down already before day one and a recession followed. Hard to blame Bush for that. What did Bush's policies do? How about pulled us out of recession, and gave us a 5 year bull market. Of course Obama does not want to talk about this as it does not fit his agenda (sound familiar?). He just wants to talk about the last year and 8 years of flawed policies that put us here. Clinton repealed Glass-Steagal. Clinton encouraged Fannie and Freddie to give loans to the underqualified. We are surprised that banks loaned money to everyone they could (that is how they make money) and then found a way using their increased available leverage to make even more profit? That is like putting a fat man in a room full of doughnuts and being shocked he ate them. Then being shocked when his health went south. Then blaming not the guy who let him in the room, but the guy who was there when he came out. and McCain's supporters are using lies. And still you are with the Mccain guys. i don't get it? And i don't want to.[/quote][quote=BondGuy]Morph, let me clear it up for you. Putsy framed the greatest generation with one of their most negative traits- Racism. For whatever reason, he felt compelled to tell us a story of the racist in the nursing home voting for the white guy. Then called them The Greatest Generation. He didn’t wax on about them saving us from tyranny.
You agreed with him, that they were the greatest generation. In context, regardless of what you meant, it appears that you agreed with the racist atribute putsy hung on them. That's the way I read it, and apparently the way ana read it as well. Ana's comment to you was addressing the racist bent the thread had taken. By calling his comment an idiotic retort, in my view, you came off as defending the racist comments. And that's what I responded to. You can claim the high road as much as you'd like regarding the greatest generation. We all agree they saved us and deserve more than we can ever hope to repay. However, Put's comments serve to remind us that they were far from perfect, and there are some traits they passed down to us that aren't so noble. Honestly, after i read Put's post i considered it too toxic to touch and figured the group would let it sit. Wrong again.[/quote]I know we disagree more often than not, BG, but after our exchange it seems clear that this particular issue appears to be much more a simple misunderstanding than an actual disagreement of the facts. If I understand you correctly we both apparently admire the greatest generation, and we both recognize that that doesn't mean we necessarily admire or even condone every belief of every individual that makes up that generation. Since there are enough topics to debate where we actually do disagree, often times quite dramatically, why waste unnecessary energy debating a topic on which we apparently essentially agree, once we get past the misinterpretations and misunderstandings.
Now about that Obama character you support ... that's another story!
[quote=BondGuy]
Oh my, I certainly did not mean to cause Bond Guy to get the vapors by mentioning that some 90 year old man used the "N-Word."
That certainly is "too toxic to touch."
Tell us, Bond Guy, how do you think you'd do at a Chris Rock performance? Would you be able to drag yourself to the door, or do you think you'd faint right where you were when he started his routine?
This, boys and girls, is what will happen if the nation screws up and elects the terrorist leaning Senator. Every time--as in EVERY TIME--somebody disagrees with him the Bond Guys will whine about how toxic it is to disagree with "The Chosen."
For example, if you're not in favor of mandatory charity you may be required to report to a central office where you will have a scarlet R tatooed on your forehead. It will be semi-permanent but will eventually disappear. Until it does everybody you see will know just what you are--one of "The Others" who dared to speak about "The One" in less than glowing terms.
Morph, +1, too much fun to be had debating area's we don't see eye to eye to let misunderstandings take up bandwidth.
Put- very tired argument. I guess this must be playing big in the south because it's not playing at all in the northeast. The race card argument that all those who disagree with Obama are branded as racist just doesn't fly. More fear mongering. On the other hand, those who say they won't vote for him because of his race, well they're racist. The people in the nursing home for example.
On the subject of race i believe we all have racist tendancies. Does that make us all racists? Probably. The goal is to move beyond those tendancies, become a tolerant person who sees people and not skin color. Much easier said than done. Chris Rock - I can take him for about as long as i can take most comedians 15 minutes. That said, i did watch his recent HBO special. it was funny. And yes it was racist. What can i say put, you're no Chris Rock. I'd rather listen to a funny racist than a misinformed one. Speaking of comedians, two I really like are Robin Williams and Lewis Black.[quote=BondGuy]On the subject of race i believe we all have racist tendancies. Does that make us all racists? Probably.
[/quote]BG, would you say this applies to everyone, or just to those who are not "people of color?"
I'm often confused at the argument occasionally heard that all white folks are to some degree inescapably and intrinsically racist, but those of color are not and in fact, some would argue, are actually incapable of racism.
I’ve not heard that argument. But i do think the term racist is applied to whites not to blacks hispanics etc. History is a merciless bitch, Jim Crow still lives in a lot of hearts.
I'd say my statement applies to all people. Al Sharpton- an obvious black racist- Along with jesse. Still, they are not who i meant- i meant everyone. The question isn't whether or not you are racist or have racist thoughts, it's whether those thoughts or tendancies govern the way you live? And can you rise above them? When you see John McCain- do you see a man or a white man? When you see Barack Obama- do you see a man or a black man? When you see John McCain-do you define him by his views or by his skin color? When you see Barack Obama- do you define him by his views or by his skin color? If you can define each of these men absent their skin color then you (we) have moved beyond race playing a role in our decision making. Unfortunately, we are seeing many who can not do that.On the subject of race i believe we all have racist tendencies. Does that make us all racists? Probably
It is the natural state of man to be tribal and wary of the other. When the Cro-Magnons lived in caves the group in cave A was not accepting of the group in cave B. Racism. Wariness of the other based on looks, speech, dress, tribal affiliation etc. is just a hardwired tendency in the human animal. And yes, we need to be aware of these tendencies and suppress them. What is really frustrating is the perception that racism is a one way street. Only white people can be racists. Believe me, from my experience I know that it is definitely a two way street. Black people can be just as racist and bigoted as any KKK member. We are already getting a taste of the political suppression of free speech in the way the Obamabots and even Obama himself throw down the racist card at any remark that is not praising of Obama. Socialist is evidently a code word for race. Liberal is now a code word for race. No criticism of Obama will be allowed without being accused of racism. We are going to have to tippy toe around verbally for the next 4 years if Obama is elected. Free speech is going to be a thing of the past. Kiss the first amendment goodbye. As to "the greatest generation" and racism. Sure. Some of them were and still are racists. People are a product of their environment and their culture and it is very difficult to change. I am probably the only person on this board who actually experienced the segregated South, even if as a small child and the wrongness of it made a profound impression upon me. I hope to God that Obama doesn't become President and it has nothing to do with his skin color. I despise his economic policies, his socialist programs, the dishonest way he has run his campaign, the thugs and criminals he surrounds himself with. I fear for our nation and our economic security. We are in for a very very very bad time if Obama is elected and his regime will change the nature of America as we know it from a land of opportunity and freedom to an economically depressed country with all the freedoms and charms of Cuba.[quote=BondGuy]I’ve not heard that argument. But i do think the term racist is applied to whites not to blacks hispanics etc. History is a merciless bitch, Jim Crow still lives in a lot of hearts.
I'd say my statement applies to all people. Al Sharpton- an obvious black racist- Along with jesse. Still, they are not who i meant- i meant everyone. The question isn't whether or not you are racist or have racist thoughts, it's whether those thoughts or tendancies govern the way you live? And can you rise above them? When you see John McCain- do you see a man or a white man? When you see Barack Obama- do you see a man or a black man? When you see John McCain-do you define him by his views or by his skin color? When you see Barack Obama- do you define him by his views or by his skin color? If you can define each of these men absent their skin color then you (we) have moved beyond race playing a role in our decision making. Unfortunately, we are seeing many who can not do that. [/quote] Bondguy, I am going to try and make this as toned down as possible to get my point across without being dismissed as a racist. I realize that prevoius statements I have made have been treated this way, and that is my own fault. I think the more important question is "Does Barack Obama view himself as an African-American who happens to be POTUS" or "Does Barack Obama view himself as the POTUS who happens to be an African-American"? In my lifetime, I have lived in multiple parts of the country, including the deep south. My experiences have shaped my opinions. In my experience, minorities in general (not always, but more often than not) associate themselves with their skin color first as the basis for their actions and beliefs. Example, the discrimination suit against MER for the retention package. Maybe because I am caucasian, I simply am unable to understand. I have considered the possiblity. I have never thought that I had to feel a certain way because I am caucasian. In fact, I don't even think about the fact that I am caucasian. In the two questions posted above, I fear that the first question applies. I feel this way not only because my previous experiences, but also by listening to Obama speak. Not what others have said, but what HE has said himself. If this falls under your definition of racism, then I will plead guilty as charged. I feel that the person elected should be concerned about America first. I don't get this feeling from Barack Obama.BG,
I don’t agree with the notion that we all - everyone - are racist, using the literal definition of that term such as this one: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human
races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving
the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule
others."
Note this definition refers only to the belief that one’s race is superior to others, etc. It does not mean that you do not notice skin color or even rise above it, it simply means that despite noticing differences you do not believe they indicate that the differences determine individual potential or achievement, or make races other than your own inherently inferior.
In that sense, and in response to your rhetorical questions about Obama, one could see neither a man or a black man, but a man who happens to be black, just as he happens to be tall and thin (and don’t even get me started on those ears!). Simply noticing obvious physical characteristics does not makes us racist - it makes us observant.
Believing that one or more of those characteristics make that person, and all others of that race, inferior to us is what defines a rasict.
As I said, using THAT definition, I certainly do NOT think everyone is a racist. Far from it. I may be naive, or it may just be the audacity of hope. (Couldn’t resist that one! )
“On the subject of race i believe we all have racist tendancies. Does that make us all racists? Probably. The goal is to move beyond those tendancies, become a tolerant person who sees people and not skin color. Much easier said than done.”
I think that there is a huge difference between racist and racial. Seeing skin color doesn't make someone racist. When you see John McCain- do you see a man or a white man? Does this make you sexist because regardless you see a man? Does it make you an ageist if you think that he's old? Does it make you a grayist if you notice the color of his hair. Does it make you a suitist if you notice that he usually wears a suit? Does it make you a racist because you see that he's white? It's all very silly. Your only sexist, ageist, grayist, suitist, or racist if you automatically think certain things of him because he has those traits. Noticing those traits just makes one an aware person. Racist comment: The next 100 meter champion will be black because blacks are faster than whites. Racial comment: The next 100 meter champion is more likely to be black because blacks are more likely to have the genetic traits that lead to world class 100 meter speed. Racist comment: Jim is faster than John because Jim is black.Morphius, I didn’t see your post when I posted. I should just stop posting and say I agree with everything that you post on all subjects.
I was sitting with a client who, coincidentally is a member of the greatest generation, and the client says I can't vote for Obama- I wouldn't vote for a black person. My first thought wasn't OMG is this person is way off base. No, my firstt thought was, "Oh yeah, Obama is black." That's how far removed his skin color is from my thought process. And IMO that's how far it should be removed from everyone's thought process. It shouldn't be an issue.
Yet we have people who are convinced that life as we know it will come to an end if he's elected. I don't see that. It's not a prevelant thought process here in the Northeast. Now i do beleive life as we know it is coming to an end. We being the white majority in this country. But it's not Barack or black people who are bringing it. It's the mexicans. They are coming, need a generation or two to get to power and they don't like white people. Yeah, you could say that's a racist comment, but it's also a fact. Just listen to Mexican leaders telling their citizens in the USA to keep having babies. It doesn't take a lot of computer power to do the math on that on. America, in a generation or two will be a very different place. Will it be a better place? I don't think it will be better for white people. Maybe i'm wrong. But by then i'll be the 90 year old racist in the nursing home. Babs, good take on racism, i wanted to post something similar but couldn't get it formulated and definately wouldn't have put as well as you did. Still, I disagree with you on Obama. And I'm not seeing any of the freedom of speech issues you see. Primo, I agree with much of what you say, minorities being insular etc, but even if Obama defines himself as an African American first I'm not seeing a dangerous situation. And i too am going by experience. I work in Philly (YEAH PHILLIES!!!!!!!!!) and we just lived through one of the most racist regimes in American history, the John Street administration. Street was mayor of Philly for eight years. And during that time there was only one color-black. His chief of staff put it best"It's our turn." It was ugly and he was a polarizing figure in many ways. Then comes the next election, street can't run, so we get Mike Nutter. Nutter is black. But not a racist black like Street. The business climate is returning to normal. No longer do vendors looking to do biz with the city need to hire black "consultants" just to get an audience with the mayor. So, Primo, I see your concern, but view Obama the same way I view Nutter, a good politician who happens to be black.BG If you work in Philly and Pennsylvania, you might be interested in Obama’s stated plan to bankrupt the coal industry and any businesses that use coal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ Since a good portion of electricity in your area comes from coal and the price of electricity is due to go up not only the coal industry will be purposely bankrupted by Obama. Nice economic plan? The man is a dangerous ideologue and if you vote for him you deserve every bit of misery that his administration is planning to rain down on not just "whitey" but every single soul in this country and possibly the world. Raising corporate taxes, raising capital gains taxes, raising income taxes while proposing massive massive social engineering give away programs. They (the Dimwit Dems) are also planning to take over 401K plans http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2102082/posts If that doesn't scare you. How about his proposed "civilian national security force" similar that in Cuba and Venezuela to make sure that we all toe the line. Brown Shirts, anyone? He proposes to fund this as much or more than our actual military. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2318 http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html http://www.babalublog.com/archives/009042.html How about those forced hours of "community service" that your children will be dragooned into performing. In Cuba children are mandated to go to camps in the countryside away from their family and are "educated" http://www.cubaverdad.net/social_control_starts_at_school.htm absolute control by the Communist party will begin in elementary school with the so-called "Cumulative School File." This is a little like a report card, but it is not limited to academic achievements. It measures "revolutionary integration," not only of the student but also of his family. This file documents whether or not the child and family participate in mass demonstrations, or whether they belong to a church or religious group. The file accompanies the child for life, and is continually updated. His university options will depend on what that file says. If he does not profess a truly Marxist life, he will be denied many career possibilities.These ideas are also those of Ayers regarding "education is revolution" http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308271974461547 Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children in the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive." The man is dangerous dangerous dangerous. If you vote for him. You deserve your fate.
Babs,
I can tell you’re passionate about all this. But do you really think that sort of rhetoric is going to change the opinion of anyone on this message board? Or are you merely trying to express how passionate you are about this? You can’t have both.
Why not? If I'm passionate about it, it is because I see a very bleak future for our country, my children and grandchildren. If I change one person's mind that would be great. It also gives me the right to say I told you so to blind fools who refuse to see.Babs,
I can tell you’re passionate about all this. But do you really think that sort of rhetoric is going to change the opinion of anyone on this message board? Or are you merely trying to express how passionate you are about this? You can’t have both.
[quote=anonymous]Morphius, I didn’t see your post when I posted. I should just stop posting and say I agree with everything that you post on all subjects.[/quote]
I take that as quite a compliment, given the source. I guess great minds really DO think alike!
What I find refreshing about this particular discussion is seeing people of differing viewpoints debating the IDEAS rather than simply attacking the person. That gets boring fast.
Well, unless it’s putsy.
(Just kidding, puts! Mostly. I think.)
gvf, here is the definition of rhetoric:Babs,
I can tell you’re passionate about all this. But do you really think that sort of rhetoric is going to change the opinion of anyone on this message board? Or are you merely trying to express how passionate you are about this? You can’t have both.
Definitions of rhetoric on the Web:
using language effectively to please or persuade grandiosity: high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation; "the grandiosity of his prose"; "an excessive ornateness of language" palaver: loud and confused and empty talk; "mere rhetoric"What Babs was saying in her last post was NOT rhetoric, they were facts. Rhetoric is chanting "Change, Change, Change..." over and over. Obama is a master of rhetoric, but every once in a while, he shows his true colors and says the things that Babs mentioned.
However, I do agree that this will not change most liberals' minds. For that to happen, they would actually have to pay attention to the facts!Putsy, You must have been one strong manager of brokerage offices! After all, predicating an investment strategy on conjecture about potential future tax law changes wouldn’t, in any way, conflict with any compliance or sales practice guidelines in our business. Great idea, you are a man truly ahead of your time!
If an old man who uses the N-word is a racist what is somebody who
lynches a black guy, or chains a black guy to a trailer hitch and drags
him till his body comes apart?
Jeane is a 34 year old mother of two. On the way home from her mother's house, after taking the kids trick or treating, her mini van runs out of gas on a busy two lane highway. Jeane gets the van safely to the shoulder, only now remembering she was on fumes eariler. It's dark and it's now started to rain. She looks for her cell phone and can't find it. She puts on the flashers and waits for the police. A half hour passes and no police. She gets out of the car and stands behind it in an effort to flag down a passing motorist. She's incredulous that driver after driver just ignores her. Even more so when one blows his horn at her and cat calls out the window as he speeds past. Finally after another 20 minutes a car pulls over. The man offers her his phone, she calls her husband. The man stays with Jeane and her kids until her husband arrives.
The next day at the office Jeane recounts the story to her co- workers. "I was cold and drenched. I was ready to give up when, finally, this black guy pulls over to help me." Is Jeane's comment racist or only descriptive?[quote=BondGuy]
Jeane is a 34 year old mother of two. On the way home from her mother's house, after taking the kids trick or treating, her mini van runs out of gas on a busy two lane highway. Jeane gets the van safely to the shoulder, only now remembering she was on fumes eariler. It's dark and it's now started to rain. She looks for her cell phone and can't find it. She puts on the flashers and waits for the police. A half hour passes and no police. She gets out of the car and stands behind it in an effort to flag down a passing motorist. She's incredulous that driver after driver just ignores her. Even more so when one blows his horn at her and cat calls out the window as he speeds past. Finally after another 20 minutes a car pulls over. The man offers her his phone, she calls her husband. The man stays with Jeane and her kids until her husband arrives.
The next day at the office Jeane recounts the story to her co- workers. "I was cold and drenched. I was ready to give up when, finally, this black guy pulls over to help me." Is Jeane's comment racist or only descriptive? [/quote] Not racist. Would it be heightist if she had said "... this tall guy pulls over ..."?Is Jeane’s comment racist or only descriptive?
Descriptive. What if it was an Amish guy? Would this be a religous slam? How about if a woman stopped? Sexist. Fat guy? Weightist. Mexican, Asian, Midget? Circus Clown? I guess in your world we aren't supposed to notice or remark on anything about anybody for fear that we are racists or some other "ist". Welcome to the Big Brother society under Obama. What a tool.It's racist to the exact same extent that saying "black guy" is sexist.
Both "Black" and "guy" are descriptive. If she said that he only stopped because he was black then it would have been racist or he only stopped because he was a guy then it would have been sexist.
I can’t believe where this topic went just because Morphius decided to distort my comment to justify a bitch-athon.
Let's just kill this topic and it's needless lunacy. PS. Babs, get some psychiatric help.It's all about you, isn't it ana? Tell us - is the atmosphere really more dense at the center of the universe where you live? Or is it just you? [quote=anabuhabkuss]Let's just kill this topic and it's needless lunacy.[/quote] Perhaps you would grace us with your list of ana-approved topics and threads? Or here's an alternative: you could simply choose to ignore those threads that fail your taste test. It will be challenging, but I'm confident the rest of us will figure out some way to continue the discussion without you. We wait with rapt anticipation for your next royal pronouncements as to which generations you deem moral and which threads you judge worthwhile.I can’t believe where this topic went just because Morphius decided to distort my comment to justify a bitch-athon.
How about you get to work, piker? Better use of your time than your irrelevant and baseless assumptions about me, how I think or my past. How’s that for self centeredness?
Now you not only want to control what posts are worthy, but who participates. Classic. Thanks so much for your concern for how I choose to spend part of my lunch break. Perhaps if you took your own advice to heart your concern would mean something, as you apparently find time to post to tell me that I am a piker for finding time to post. Very astute. Yawn.How about you get to work, piker? Better use of your time than your irrelevant and baseless assumptions about me, how I think or my past. How’s that for self centeredness?
gvf, here is the definition of rhetoric:[quote=gvf]Babs,
I can tell you’re passionate about all this. But do you really think that sort of rhetoric is going to change the opinion of anyone on this message board? Or are you merely trying to express how passionate you are about this? You can’t have both.
Definitions of rhetoric on the Web:
using language effectively to please or persuade grandiosity: high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation; "the grandiosity of his prose"; "an excessive ornateness of language" palaver: loud and confused and empty talk; "mere rhetoric"What Babs was saying in her last post was NOT rhetoric, they were facts. Rhetoric is chanting "Change, Change, Change..." over and over. Obama is a master of rhetoric, but every once in a while, he shows his true colors and says the things that Babs mentioned.
However, I do agree that this will not change most liberals' minds. For that to happen, they would actually have to pay attention to the facts![/quote]Indy,
Rhetoric is a bit more complicated than that (anyone in this business must know that by now). Rhetoric also has to do with: ethos, pathos, and logos. I was not insinuating her post was excessive or empty. I was merely suggesting that her style of argument is probably not productive/persuasive given her desired outcome.
Disclosure: I was a rhetoric major in college.
Disclosure: I was a rhetoric major in college.
With a basket weaving minor? Just kidding. I was an Anthropology Major with a minor in Ceramics. I really wasn't deluded that I would be changing anyone's mind.Let me take these in order:
Put: What do you think it makes a person who murders someone? The old guy using the N word is a racist. If that's all he does then that's all he is. Babs: Sorry sweetie, we've already got big brother under your boy Bush. It's called Real ID. As a fist pounding conservative you know all about this. You remember- the conservatives were chanting their normal "no more government mantra" until someone flew an airplane into a building. That ended that! Now conservatives can't get enough big government. They got real liberal real fast. "Here take all my rights away. I'll gladly trade them if only you protect me from the big bad terrorist." That would be Real ID. I chuckle whenever I hear conservatives speak out against big government. Government couldn't get big enough fast enough to protect their rich fat asses. What a joke! Back on the racist question, the question posed by my scenerio is just that, a question. It doesn't forward an opinion one way or the other. It's purposely vague and only intended to provoke thought. This question predates Obama being on the national scene by at least a generation. So too, it is not Obama specific. ANON- My answer to the question is we don't have enough information to make a judgement. That Jeane used race as an identifyer would probably be viewed by many as a racial tendency. Why did she pick race to define this guy when it had nothing to do with the story? She didn't define him by his stature, his clothing, his car or any other trait. Only by his race. Many of you may believe this is ridiculous-it's not. Assuming Jeane is caucasian would she say" this white guy stopped?" No, we all know she wouldn't do that. Unless it had something to do with the story it would sound ridiculous. She might pick out some other characteristic, if it was important to the story. Yet everyday we get into conversations where people, for no reason relative to the subject at hand, define those different than they by their race. That in itself doesn't make them racists. But why race? Something to think about.[quote=BondGuy]Let me take these in order:
Put: What do you think it makes a person who murders someone? The old guy using the N word is a racist. If that's all he does then that's all he is. [/quote]Nope, you whiners throw the word racist around like it was a manhole cover. Wait, I forgot, you worship at the altar of political correctness so I should say "person hole cover." So sorry, hope you didn't faint straight away.
Let me explain something to you. Racists are people who believe that the differences between the races result in a superior and inferior relationship AND--important that you understand that it is AND---that the superior race has a manifest destiny style right to dominate the inferior race.
There are exactly 3,921 racists in the United States.
The guys who tied that James Byrd soul to a pickup truck and pulled him until there was nothing left are racists--pulling somebody behind a pickup truck is an example of the manifest destiny style right to dominate.
Racists do things like that, or like lynching, or marching the inferior race into rooms to be gassed. Again, there are very few racists--almost none. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that you've ever met one.
On the other hand there lots of bigots. Bigots are people who believe that there are critical differences in the races--but do not go so far as to believe that those differences justify dominance of the inferior by the superior.
Those who make statements such as "I won't vote for a N-word" are bigots--there is no indication that he thought that there is a superior/inferior dynamic. He just had a personal opinion that he voiced to a few people who were close enough to hear him. The "Sticks and Stones may break my bones.........." rhyme is what applies.
Those who mock others are not racists either, they're simply telling jokes and/or stories based on universal truths that all of us recognize. When Chris Rock warns that you'd have to be crazy to drive down Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd there is not an American adult who does not understand why that is a funny thing to say.
Stereotypes are not drawn out of thin air, and whining about them paints the whiner as.....well............a whiner.
[quote=BondGuy]Let me take these in order:
Put: What do you think it makes a person who murders someone? The old guy using the N word is a racist. If that's all he does then that's all he is. Babs: Sorry sweetie, we've already got big brother under your boy Bush. It's called Real ID. As a fist pounding conservative you know all about this. You remember- the conservatives were chanting their normal "no more government mantra" until someone flew an airplane into a building. That ended that! Now conservatives can't get enough big government. They got real liberal real fast. "Here take all my rights away. I'll gladly trade them if only you protect me from the big bad terrorist." That would be Real ID. I chuckle whenever I hear conservatives speak out against big government. Government couldn't get big enough fast enough to protect their rich fat asses. What a joke! This is an area that I agree with you 100% BG. Bush's biggest downfall was his spending, and the expansion of the federal government. To borrow a phrase, we do not need more of the same. Of course there is a difference, Obama's expansion of government will make the expansion under Bush pale in comparison. Back on the racist question, the question posed by my scenerio is just that, a question. It doesn't forward an opinion one way or the other. It's purposely vague and only intended to provoke thought. This question predates Obama being on the national scene by at least a generation. So too, it is not Obama specific. ANON- My answer to the question is we don't have enough information to make a judgement. That Jeane used race as an identifyer would probably be viewed by many as a racial tendency. Why did she pick race to define this guy when it had nothing to do with the story? She didn't define him by his stature, his clothing, his car or any other trait. Only by his race. Many of you may believe this is ridiculous-it's not. Assuming Jeane is caucasian would she say" this white guy stopped?" No, we all know she wouldn't do that. Unless it had something to do with the story it would sound ridiculous. She might pick out some other characteristic, if it was important to the story. Yet everyday we get into conversations where people, for no reason relative to the subject at hand, define those different than they by their race. That in itself doesn't make them racists. But why race? Something to think about. [/quote]OK, I’ll throw in a few more points on this, if for no other reason than because ana doesn’t approve of the topic. Plus, I’m in a philophical mood with the election finally upon us.
[quote=BondGuy]ANON- My answer to the question is we don’t have enough information to make a judgement. That Jeane used race as an identifyer would probably be viewed by many as a racial tendency. Why did she pick race to define this guy when it had nothing to do with the story? She didn’t define him by his stature, his clothing, his car or any other trait. Only by his race. [/quote]
And also, as ice rightly pointed out, by his gender. Does that make Jeanne sexist?
Moreover, it’s carrying it too far to say she “defined” him by race, or even by sex. There is a subtle but significant difference between “defining” someone and “describing” someone. In your hypothetical she clearly described her rescuer rather than defined him.
To infer anything beyond that as to whether or not she might be racist or have racial tendencies is to take leave of the facts and enter into speculation.
You're right that it is something to think about, but not necessarily for the reasons of racism or "racial tendencies."
For example, Jeanne also did not mention what language he spoke or what country he was from, since one would assume that he was American and spoke English based on the context of the story and where the events occurred. But had be been a white man speaking French, you can be sure she would have described him as a Frenchman, and few people would accuse her of having nationalistic tendencies, much less being nationalistic.
Or if the story had taken place in an area where the vast majority of people were black, and her rescuer was black, and those listening to the story were aware of that fact, I doubt she would have described her rescuer as black, but if instead he was white, I would expect she would mention that fact, doubtless without anyone accusing her of being racist or having racial tendencies.
Perhaps it's not so much race itself that is at the root of this as it is our natural human tendency to screen out as so much noise that which we see a lot of, and notice disproportionately those things that are exceptions to what we come to accept as the norm.
It is what we believe about this information about the exceptions that we notice that determine and define if we are racist, not the mere fact that we notice them or mention them.
Enough all ready. Time to get to work.
Remember to exercise your duty as a citizen and vote today. And remember there is much more that unites us as Americans than separates us as Democrats or Rebulicans.
Well, with the possible exclusion of everybody who doesn't agree with absolutely everything I believe and say.
[quote=BondGuy]Babs: Sorry sweetie, we’ve already got big brother under your boy Bush. It’s called Real ID. …They got real liberal real fast. “Here take all my rights away. I’ll gladly trade them if only you protect me from the big bad terrorist.” That would be Real ID. [/quote] +
What a steamy pile of Jimmy Carter. Real ID is nothing more than the Feds requiring the states to have standards on how IDs are issues and their design to lessen forgery. There are no rights being taken away as a result of Real ID, it's just lunacy. Had a Democratic administration proposed it BG would be hailing it as the second coming.Every time one of the whiners brings up lost rights all you have to do
to shut them down is ask them to name a right they had in the year 2000
that they do not have now.
ANON- My answer to the question is we don’t have enough information to make a judgement. That Jeane used race as an identifyer would probably be viewed by many as a racial tendency.
OMG, I get so tired of the liberal tendency to see everything through the prism of race, and to seem so eager to scream racist in the most innocent of situations. Ever consider that she mentioned his race for the same reason that she mentioned his gender, because those two are extremely significant descriptive elements? Blacks make up 12% or so of the population in the <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US, if only 12% of the population were over 5’7”, do you think we’d hesitate to apply “tall” to anyone 5’10” when describing them? It’s nothing but BS PC rules that attempt to make someone feel guilty, or at the very least suspect, because they happen to notice someone’s race when describing them.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Now, had she said she felt threatened because the person stopping to help her was black, I’d have my suspicions about her “real” agenda, unless of course she happened to be Jesse Jackson…
I wonder how many votes Obama will be getting from people who will cast it to feel good about themselves and their views on the issue of race? I know BG won't be among them, being a committed Democrat whose vote was never in question, but I'm confident there will be loads of "ain't I a good person" votes being cast.My first thought wasn’t OMG is this person is way off base. No, my firstt thought was, “Oh yeah, Obama is black.” That’s how far removed his skin color is from my thought process.
The Demo’s are starting to take control…SHumer was just on Fox talking about how they want to control content on radio…here we go…“making it fair”
[quote=bspears]
The Demo’s are starting to take control…SHumer was just on Fox
talking about how they want to control content on radio…here we
go…“making it fair”
[/quote]
They have a “Ram Slam Jam” agenda.
Destroying talk radio is but one of the things they want to do right away.
The highest priorty will be unionize Wal*Mart and Home Depot by outlawing secret ballots.
When Home Depot increases their prices to pass along the increase in
their costs due to unionization I will consider that to be a form of a
tax increase.
Anytime government action causes prices paid by consumers to rise it’s a back door tax increase.
Morh and Ice- gender is the noun, and perfectly acceptable. It’s the adjectives that can get us into trouble. Not always, but at times.
Morh, good post, lots of thought including scenerios we've discussed among friends. And as i've said there are no right or wrong answers. We can agree or not, we can see each other's viewpoint and accept it or not. Just an interesting exercise. GVB-I knew I could count on you to show up. I see that your reading comprehension hasn't improved. Off course you might do better without the blinders on. take them off, start at the top of the thread and carefully reread everything. Or don't, I really don't care. Primo- This is one thing i don't get when it comes to conservatives; For years they were banging the drum to expand government. Now the American government is the biggest it's ever been. And now they're anti government again? Put- start with the fourth amendment. DHS illegally searching laptops. That it's illegal hasn't stopped them from violating citizens rights. DHS also is stopping, detaining, and searching citizens far from our borders. Again, a fourth amendment violation. Meanwhile the supreme court is scratching their head trying to figure out just how far the fourth amendment exception should go. The laptop thing is definally beyond the scope of the exception, but the non border search and seizure is still being debated. I know this is all good as far as you are concerned. You're not the one being illegally stopped and searched or having your computer seized by the government. And since it's all in the name of protecting your fat butt, all the better, right? Additionally, you might have noticed the mini police state that use to be your local airport. And did you know if you visit one of our fine cities and take a scenic picture of your wife with a bridge in the background that some guys in black Crown Vics will roll up on you and take your camera away? Lot's of nice expensive busted cameras among us amateur photo types. One of my riding buddies got face planted to the hood of one of those Crown Vics after he took a picture of the City Hall in a Texas town. The LEOs broke his three hundred dollar camera and roughed him up after he refused to answer any of their questions. They violated his rights from here to next Sunday and he would know, he's a civil rights attorney. He was on a motorcyle tour where you have to take pictures of the town halls of the places you visit to prove you were there. It's one of those crazy Ironbutt rally things. Perfectly innocent and perfectly legal. That was four years ago and now poor little town is trying to figure out a way to pay the settlement. He definately twisted their short and curlies. But most of us aren't civil rights attorneys who can fight back and win. No most of us are just poor slobs who have to accept broken cameras, ruined clothes and wrecked trips. On your threshold for racism, among the more ridiculous things you've posted. Generally, i try to pull something of value from your posts, thus giving you the benefit of a doubt. There is nothing to pull from this one- ludicrous.[quote=BondGuy]
Put- start with the fourth amendment. DHS illegally searching laptops. That it's illegal hasn't stopped them from violating citizens rights. DHS also is stopping, detaining, and searching citizens far from our borders. Again, a fourth amendment violation. Meanwhile the supreme court is scratching their head trying to figure out just how far the fourth amendment exception should go. The laptop thing is definally beyond the scope of the exception, but the non border search and seizure is still being debated. I know this is all good as far as you are concerned. You're not the one being illegally stopped and searched or having your computer seized by the government. And since it's all in the name of protecting your fat butt, all the better, right?[/quote]
What I asked was if you can cite a right that YOU have lost since the year 2000. Coming back with black helicopter crap about DHS searching laptops is not responsive.
What would be an example of a citizen being detained and searched far from our borders? Are you whining about having to clear security in order to board a US bound airplane?
[quote=BondGuy]
[/quote]
I'll call bujllschidt on that. I take pictures of whatever I want--including the inside of airports and airplanes--and nobody in a Crown Vic has pulled up and taken my camera, much less broken it.
[quote=BondGuy]
One of my riding buddies got face planted to the hood of one of those
Crown Vics after he took a picture of the City Hall in a Texas town.
The LEOs broke his three hundred dollar camera and roughed him up
after he refused to answer any of their questions. They violated his
rights from here to next Sunday and he would know, he’s a civil rights
attorney. He was on a motorcyle tour where you have to take pictures of
the town halls of the places you visit to prove you were there. It’s
one of those crazy Ironbutt rally things. Perfectly innocent and
perfectly legal. That was four years ago and now poor little town
is trying to figure out a way to pay the settlement. He definately
twisted their short and curlies. But most of us aren’t civil rights
attorneys who can fight back and win. No most of us are just poor slobs
who have to accept broken cameras, ruined clothes and wrecked
trips.
[/quote]
I thought you said “expensive” cameras were broken. $300 cameras are disposables.
I’d like to look into the story–what town in Texas has civil servants who behaved so poorly?
[quote=BondGuy]
How so? I'll ask again---if a guy who uses the "N word" is a racist what word do you use to describe somebody who lynches somebody of color?
How about a guy who owns a duplex and refuses to rent it to a tenant of color?
It's perfectly responsive. The fourth amendment is a biggie and your boy Bush has shit all over it.
And how do you feel about some low paid government male employee using technology to strip your wife? He's seeing it all, as if she was standing there bare assed naked. Not a violation? And if they want to see more to the back room she goes for the private lap dance. You're right, a $300 hundred camera isn't very expensive, but isn't a disposable either. Does it matter? Many IBA rides as well as Team Strange rides have picture requirements to prove you did the ride. Cheap cameras that ride in saddle bags or tanks bags are the norm. They are not the expensive cameras I spoke of. One guy lost an expensive Nikon D200 when he tooka picture of a canal lock. Others have had equally expensive camera seized or damaged by ham handed LEOs while taking pictures of ships, airplanes, chemical plants (very cool night photos). Others have had memory cards seized. Still others have had to explain stored photos that violated the officer's sense of morality. AS if a police officer should be the decider? Google up some camera forums and the stories are there. And by the way- you are not permitted to take pictures of bridges anymore. They are a big no-no. All violate your rights. But go ahead come on up and take a picture of the GWB and see what happens. AS for my buddies run in with the small town Texas justice, sorry Put you can believe what you will. I don't care. Just so you know, their defense was that someone had phoned in a bomb threat. Yeah, that didn't fly, even in a state full of bull shit. The planes that flew into those buildings were seized by arab men. Now swedish grandmothers in wheelchairs get pulled out of line and strip searched. A bungling idiot, tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb. Now for the next fifty years we'll be taking our shoes off in airports. Police want to know why a senior citizen on a motorcycle just took a picture of their courthouse. Law enforcement violates our rights, does what ever it wants to us and justifies itself by slapping a 9/11 sticker on it. Put, i'm not gretting what you mean on the race question. I would call the lyncher a murderer. The land lord is a racist. The guy who uses the N word may be a racist depending on how he uses it. The nursing home guy you mentioned-racist . the won't vote for black- racist. Lyncher-murderer, race as motive.BG- How do you feel about The Fairness Doctrine and your boy Schumer’s comparing/contrasting to pornography?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-defends-fairness-doctrine-as-fair-and-balanced-2008-11-04.html
[quote=BondGuy]
It’s perfectly responsive. The fourth amendment is a biggie and your boy Bush has shit all over it.
[/quote]
Again, what is a liberty or freedom that YOU have lost? Recounting internet stories is meaningless.
[quote=BondGuy]
And how do you feel about some low paid government male employee using technology to strip your wife? He's seeing it all, as if she was standing there bare assed naked. Not a violation? And if they want to see more to the back room she goes for the private lap dance.[/quote]
What a load of crap. I pass through airport security no less than thirty times a year and I have NEVER encountered the machines that are used by El Al.
I am aware that the technology is there, and I am also aware that the image is not of the person standing there "bare assed naked." It's a gray background with a lighter gray image of the person--should they have anything strapped to themselves it can be easily seen. It's not an invasion of privacy, it's a devlopment in technology.
If it is deployed in the US, and it may be, the rules require the person who will be inspected to opt out--to go for a manual search.
As for the comments about a private lap dance---guys with IQs in excess of 70 wouldn't buy into that crap, much less repeat it.
El Al does strip search every passenger--every one of them. But it's less of a big deal that stripping down in front of a doctor or a corpsman at the induction center. You seem to have some sort of "issue" with being ashamed of your body. Perhaps you can find somebody to talk it out with.
[quote=BondGuy]
[/quote]
That entire paragraph is garbage. There are some rules against taking pictures of certain structures, but does it make sense to you that there are goons hiding in the trees on the off chance that somebody might come by and snap a picture?
But, just because you're not paranoid does not mean they're not out to get you.
I have lots of shots of the GWB, many taken since the War on Terror began. Once I took my cameras and went down to the little lighthouse and took some great shots up at the bridge with the moon in the background.
There were no goons lurking around--and none came rising up from the water to seize me and my cameras.
[quote=BondGuy]
[/quote]
All I asked was what town in Texas did that? Surely you didn't make up the story without considering that a honesty merchant would ask you to identify the town?
[quote=BondGuy]
The planes that flew into those buildings were seized by arab men. Now
swedish grandmothers in wheelchairs get pulled out of line and strip
searched. A bungling idiot, tried to blow up a plane with a shoe
bomb. Now for the next fifty years we’ll be taking our shoes off in
airports. Police want to know why a senior citizen on a
motorcycle just took a picture of their courthouse. Law
enforcement violates our rights, does what ever it wants to us and
justifies itself by slapping a 9/11 sticker on it.
[/quote]
The reason that the grandmothers and babies encounter the TSA at the
airport is because of whiners like you. You know damn well that
you were out front screaming–probably marching in a giant circle
jerk of losers carrying signs–about racial profiling when the TSA was
so bold as to suggest that singling out grandmothers and babies for
spot checks was a waste of time.
You are not in the same area code with intellectual honesty.
[quote=BondGuy]
Put, i'm not gretting what you mean on the race question. I would call the lyncher a murderer. The land lord is a racist. The guy who uses the N word may be a racist depending on how he uses it. The nursing home guy you mentioned-racist . the won't vote for black- racist. Lyncher-murderer, race as motive.[/quote]
The point is you whiners throw the word "racist" around without thinking. Dealing with your type makes one want to sing--to the tune of Old MacDonald Had a Farm---".........here a racist, there a racist, everywhere a racist racist........"
If somebody believes that Asians have a superior intellect to Caucasians are they a racist?
I say no. They'd be a racist if they believed that their intellectual superiority gave them some sort of right, or even a duty, to dominate the caucasians.
There's lots of bigots--and there are lots of people who are prejudiced. But there are almost no racists.
It would be nice if you whiners toned down the rhetoric.
Regarding the guy who owns some real estate and refuses to rent to tenants of color.
He’s not a racist, nor is he a bigot. He’s prejudiced–he
"pre-judged" the situation and decided he didn’t want to deal with
whatever issues his experience has taught him to expect.
Should he be allowed to pre-judge like that, or should he be sent somewhere for remedial training?
How about the woman who is driving alone at night and gets stopped by a red light in the "rough part of town."
If she hits her car’s door locks is she a racist?
How about a securities industry branch manager who won’t hire
applicants of color because he has never known one who was able to
break out? Is that manager a racist?
See, people who react negatively to another race are
prejudiced—they’d be a racist if they wanted to kill that other
person for no reason other than that person’s race.
This is one thing i don’t get when it comes to conservatives; For years they were banging the drum to expand government. Now the American government is the biggest it’s ever been. And now they’re anti government again?
The reason you don't get it is that you are unable to distinguish between Conservatives and Republicans. Clue.....not always the same thing. McCain is a Republican but is NOT a conservative. Bush is a Repbulican but NOT a conservative. Once you figure this out, you might "get" a few more concepts.Ice- exactly the point. She could have said somebody. She could have told the story in many different ways. That’s the lesson of the exercise. Why race? Does it mean something or nothing?
Rugby- My boy Shumer? What about your girl Palin? How do justify that vote? "Sarah, it's Nick, he wants to talk to you." Stupid! I don't know enough about FD to have an opinion beyond you can't have it both ways. This is something being stirred up by the right wing venom machine- Rush - Malkin etc. Babs- Since when is Bush not a conservative? He was hand picked to be prez by the most conservative fathers of his party. Conservative is a relative term. Bush is much more conservative than McCain. McCain is much more conservative than Obama. Put- thanks for the thoughful reply, but are you serious? Try looking up the meaning of the word racism. You'll find that prejudice based on race is racism. So is discrimination based on race. Both examples of which you've conveniently excluded from your definition. I know living in the south as you do, members of your generation have come up with all sorts of ways to get themselves through the night when it comes to racism, but way way over the top. Your lucky you got out when you did. ou wouldn't last ten seconds in the biz today with that attitude. Even in nashville or wherever you're from. Put on the civil rights thing- i keep forgeting you are one of the people who's Ok with this. So just as you ignore racism in your midst, you ignore your civil rights circling the drain. But you're safe! Oh and the town, it was a county. I misspoke. And it was three years ago not four. And it's not so small- I can't believe my recall is so poor. i've heard this guy tell the story so many times. Neuces County- does that sound right? On the coast somewhere. I'm not much of a Texas geography person. And make me laugh some more with the honesty merchant BS. This is more fun than watching sean hannity lie about Obama. Come on Put make me laugh!Bondguy, you wrote “ANON- My answer to the question is we don’t have enough information to make a judgement. That Jeane used race as an identifyer would probably be viewed by many as a racial tendency. Why did she pick race to define this guy when it had nothing to do with the story? She didn’t define him by his stature, his clothing, his car or any other trait. Only by his race.”
When asked about the fact that his gender was also being used, you tried to make the point that it didn't matter because it is a noun and not an adjective. Let's try to understand your logic. According to you, "A black guy helped me" might be a racist comment, but can't be a sexist comment because "guy" is a noun. What happens if she changed her words and said, "A male black helped me."? Would you now say that it could possibly be a sexist comment, but couldn't be a racist comment because "black" is now being used as a noun and male is being used as an adjective. To take this to more of an extreme, "A male nigger helped me" could be considered sexist, but not racist following your logic. "black guy" and "male black" are equally racist and sexist and mean the exact same thing. In this case, they are equally not sexist and not racist. They are descriptive without any value judgement attached. By the way, we do have enough information to make a judgement. Without any evidence to the contrary that shows that someone is making a racist or sexist or some other "ist" comment, we need to assume that it's not racist. Otherwise, racism and sexism or another ism can be used for the reason behind every action.Blacks voting for Obama instead of McCain can’t be racist because “Blacks” is a noun. (Sorry, but I couldn’t resist.) Actually, I don’t see any racism with that stat unless it differs greatly from the % of blacks who are registered as Democrats.
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/lounge/crazy-maybe-maybe-not