[Greegor]

G > Are you obsessed with gays?

John Devereux wrote

I don't recall much about the subject from him in the past. He
contributed to an already ongoing "discussion" involving them.

Sloman's comments seem to be quite vitriolic about
groups who don't look well upon gays.

JD > As did you and the others claiming an "obsession".
JD > Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

Sloman put the "raging" in liberalism.

cameo wrote:
Where is your obsession with the gay subject
coming from? You keep dragging it in
regardless what the subject is. Get a life, man!

 

[cameo]

Are you obsessed with gays?

Maybe he is in the closet?

 

[[email protected]]

Lets call a spade a spade:

The Republicans lost because they wanted to lose.

They (Republicans) know that this country can not live under W's tax cuts..

Sure we can, we're just spending too much. Spending under Clinton
averaged 19.6pct of GDP. Under Obama, 24.4 pct.

That the problem.

So they had to give the Democrats the election so they (Democrats) can
do what they (Republicans) could not do.

Raise taxes like Regan did, and save face.
(Regan raised taxes by calling it something else)

The Republicans offered (and continue to offer) to cut out deductions,
and broaden the base. Paul Ryan was touting that last weekend.
Obama, the ideologue, insists on higher marginal rates.

Blame the Democrat's for raising taxes, a Republican president did not
do that, saves face.

Now the Republicans want to save face again by giving illegal emigrants
a path to citizenship ( or something close) so they can get elected.

Why start now ??

They have the taxes to now reduced the debt and it was not their
(Republicans) fault.

Nope. The Dems raised taxes $60B this last round, plus a bunch of
taxes in Obamacare (about $100B, IIRC). The deficit's over a trillion
on a cash basis. Over SEVEN trillion if you count incurred
liabilities (i.e. future promises made) last year.

$160B a year? That's not even enough to pay for Obamacare, much less
the new spending they still want (in their new budget).

Life is now good and they (Republicans) did not have to do what they
could not do. (Raise taxes)

H

For all their bumbling, Republicans have held federal spending roughly
flat since the Tea Party elections of 2010.

With Sylvester the Sequester, they've checked spending growth again.
That's good for the economy, and it's already creating optimism among
business and investors--it's been the buzz of late.

If we actually balanced our books, America would soar.

 

[cameo]

Nope. The Dems raised taxes $60B this last round, plus a bunch of
taxes in Obamacare (about $100B, IIRC). The deficit's over a trillion
on a cash basis. Over SEVEN trillion if you count incurred
liabilities (i.e. future promises made) last year.

$160B a year? That's not even enough to pay for Obamacare, much less
the new spending they still want (in their new budget).

That's what Obama calls a "balanced" approach. LOL

With Sylvester the Sequester, they've checked spending growth again.
That's good for the economy, and it's already creating optimism among
business and investors--it's been the buzz of late.

Just wait till Obama comes with up something for our 401K balances like
what EU came up with Cyprus savings accounts. Out of fairness, of course.

 

[Gib Bogle]

I cannot believe that you guys are so devoid of actual historical
facts. Einstein believed in god.

Did Gib go round asking all those folks? NO! That is a good way to
get shitcanned from a job. So I KNOW the retarded **** saying "in my
experience" really means:

"I have been guessing about the beliefs of any colleagues I may have
ever had in every case."

Not very fucking scientific at all, if you ask me. And these days,
even more folks keep their stance to themselves than ever before.

After centuries during which admitting non-belief could get you tortured
and/or killed, the believers are now very upset that non-believers are
finally free to speak their minds. It's a sick joke.

 

[rickman]

If only the PC crowd would also keep their politics to themselves.

It's simple: you guys can't retaliate here.

*You* guys? Who exactly are you lumping me with?

 

[Gib Bogle]

What exactly are you going on about? You think science is a waste of
time and money? Really???

He is a bona fide duckwit.

 

[Gib Bogle]

They know about all the silly errors in living things.
Some of them are hilarious.

Jeroen Belleman

They just know too much about the subject.

 

[Greegor]

Sloman wrote:
BS > There really are people around who believe that
BS > gays are evil, rather than different. I don't know
BS > any personally - pretty much all of my friends are
BS > what Americans call college-educated liberals
BS > who had to give up that idea when they first went
BS > to college - graduates of Bob Jones University
BS > don't really qualify as college educated and liberal.
BS >
BS > My evidence the existence of a gays-are-evil
BS > brigade is based what they write in the
BS > "letters to the editor" sections of the newspapers
BS > that I read, and on the abuse they yell at
BS > demonstrations that I see on television.

G > Are you obsessed with gays?

cameo > Maybe he is in the closet?

I think Sloman's just a RAGING liberal towing
the party line on emotional issues listed as
eligible for "liberal brownie points".

 

[josephkk]

Better start keeping tabs on the forests! If we run out, we can also
stay warm with that money.. I hear they have the bleaching process down
good, we can also use it for charmin.!

Jamie

Naw. Two problems: 1) The new bills are way too stiff and too slick after
the intaglio printing process. 2) Most of the new money is virtual,
unless you can use virtual paper for the task is won't work at all.

?-)

 

[Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers]

Naw. Two problems: 1) The new bills are way too stiff and too slick after
the intaglio printing process. 2) Most of the new money is virtual,
unless you can use virtual paper for the task is won't work at all.

?-)

Jeez... you are both utter idiots.

Your fucktarded attempts at humor are even worse than Terrell's.

Now that is a feat!

 

[cameo]

I doubt it. Anyway, we've all moved to PPRuNe.

So what about many of us who are ground bound?

 

[Bill Sloman]

He is a bona fide duckwit.

You shouldn't be rude about ducks.

 

[cameo]

They put up with fans and people in various other parts of the business.

Unfortunately I don't see any section there that is devoted to
discussion of our former company by employees like in that old internal NG.

 

[Greegor]

BTW, there is a god, and he has noodly appendages.

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/d/dc/Fsm.jpg

 

[[email protected]]

On 16/03/2013 4:15 p.m., cameo wrote:


Who is more likely to reject evolution, a Democratic or a Republican
politician?

Democrats, for sure. By seeking totalitarian central control, they reject the evolution of human choices, possibility, and behavior, as well as the diversity those things depend on.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Democrats, for sure.  By seeking totalitarian central control, they reject the evolution of human choices, possibility, and behavior, as well as the diversity those things depend on.

Pity about the facts. Republicans are less likey than Democrats to
accept the reality of evolution. But James Arthur has a typically
Republican tendency to ignore any evidence that doesn't suit his
argument.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx

 

[cameo]

Pity about the facts. Republicans are less likey than Democrats to
accept the reality of evolution. But James Arthur has a typically
Republican tendency to ignore any evidence that doesn't suit his
argument.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx

Even if it's so, what does it matter in practical terms? No human living
now or in the past ever vitnessed evolution of species from one to
another, so what does it matter what we believe about it? It's no
different than believing in extra-terrestial beings. Some believe in
their existence, some don't. Your views about it make no difference and
one view does not make it superior over the other.

 

[[email protected]]

Pity about the facts. Republicans are less likey than Democrats to
accept the reality of evolution. But James Arthur has a typically
Republican tendency to ignore any evidence that doesn't suit his
argument.

No, you miss the point.

Show me a Democrat these days that believes in free markets, natural
selection of products, businesses, employers, etc., that they evolve
into anything good, or respond to external selective pressures.

When it comes to human potential, they don't believe individuals
making selections in their own interest evolves a brighter future for
same, or that they can be trusted to do so. Progs disparage the idea
that it does / they could as "social Darwinism" as a way of rejecting
it.

So, to the extent most Democrats believe in natural selection, in
everyday life they deny it, think it's bad, and want to stop it.

Economically, they place their faith in divine intervention.

 

[rickman]

No, you miss the point.

Show me a Democrat these days that believes in free markets, natural
selection of products, businesses, employers, etc., that they evolve
into anything good, or respond to external selective pressures.

Hi, I'm here!

When it comes to human potential, they don't believe individuals
making selections in their own interest evolves a brighter future for
same, or that they can be trusted to do so. Progs disparage the idea
that it does / they could as "social Darwinism" as a way of rejecting
it.

How do you know what I believe? Just from the label "Democrat" you can
infer all that?

So, to the extent most Democrats believe in natural selection, in
everyday life they deny it, think it's bad, and want to stop it.

Economically, they place their faith in divine intervention.

I think I am starting to agree with something you said in an another post.