Hunker down in the bomb shelters. Get yourself ready. Kiss kiss.
.
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
07 Aug 2006 09:17:44 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Aidan wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Aidan wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Yet Steven has his head so far
up his own *****, that he denies this with a lame "deficit less
than
predicted, and so on and so forth". Hundreds of Billions of
dollars of yearly surpluses have been replaced by Hundreds of
Billions of dollars yearly in deficits...and this doesn't
include the Iraq war which could cost a trillion, or more by the
time it's over.
There is more revenue coming in to the treasury right now than
there was during the Clinton years. Deal with it.
SURPRISE! Another argument based on misdirection from Mr Douglas!
Increased revenues mean little to nothing when your expenditure
completely eclipses them. Can you guess what that results in?
Massive deficits.
No kidding! But the point I was responding to was eric's claim that
the tax cuts caused the deficits. Of course it is the spending that
is causing the deficits. Some of the leftists who post here probably
think I support Bush wholeheartedly on EVERYTHING he does. Well, as
I've pointed out several times, I have plenty of problems with Bush.
His low approval rating is not limited to people who disagree with
him on Iraq. I disagree with him on other things, but nevertheless,
I am part of his low approval rating. And the out-of-control
spending is part of it.
Well, everybody has their little qualms. For your information though,
and purely from a mathematical perspective, both tax cuts and
increased spending DO contribute to increased deficits.
Not if the tax cuts lead to increased revenue to the treasury because
of increased economic activity. It happened with JFK's tax cuts and
Reagan's tax cuts. Now it is happening again with Bush's tax cuts.
You mean that the super wealthy were waiting for tax cuts before they
felt comfortable dipping into their fortunes?
I doubt it.
I wouldn't expect a proponent of Communism to understand the dynamic
effect of tax policies on capitalistic economic activity.
Yeah Steve... you show that strawman who's boss!
It is a fact
that setting tax rates too high can cause a slowdown effect, while
lowering those tax rates can have a stimulative effect on economic
activity.
When you consider that as of 2001 the richest 20% of people in America own
84% of all the wealth (in fact, the top 1% owns around 35%), you start to
wonder: what good does any of this do for the other 80% who must divide the
remaining 16%?
Sure, those with vast reserves of wealth make more money, and the government
can come and make victorious speeches about the great job they're doing
with the economy... when the reality is that the divide between the rich
and the poor is growing at an alarming rate.
As the statement below mentions, capital gains tax rates were
cut in 1997, and the effect was a doubling of those revenues in four
years. And by the way, it's not just the super wealthy who benefit from
tax cuts; though I can't help but notice how those of you on the left
love to place class *envy* among your most cherished of values.
Disdain for greed != envy
Work that scarecrow
<*SNIP*>
The tax cuts are a red herring. The increased revenue is due
to a feedback loop bought about by increased expenditure.
More expenditure = more money paid to US corporations = increased revenue
There is a hint of truth to that, as federal expenditures can certainly
stimulate an economy in recession -- that works to a point, and then
it's up to the private sector economy to grow its way out of the
recession. That's what just happened in the past few years.
Keyword 'private'. The growth by and large occurs within the wealth pools
of the already supremely rich. Widening the socio-economic divide in no
way benefits the majority of Americans.
The problem is that the money going offshore far outweighs the money
cycling
through the feedback loop, and hence a deficit. When expenditure is
wound back, revenue will also drop, and you'll still have a massive
deficit.
If there is economic growth (which there is) revenues will continue to
increase as the private sector economy grows,
Translation: Rich people will continue to get richer. Poor people get
further in debt. But that's OK, so long as the rich man reaps more than
the poor guys borrow, and the numbers look nice.
The deficit won't go away in a hurry, unless the economic elite all of a
sudden decide to pay off everyones debts. Can you seriously see that ever
happening?
despite any winding back
of government expenditures -- as if that's going to happen, especially
if the Democrats take over. Democrats love social spending. They have
already said they want to spend *more* on the new Medicare prescription
drug benefit that debuted this year.
Well, if the insanely wealthy were taxed proportional to the percentage of
total wealth they owned, there'd be a fuckin ***** load of money to be spent
on all manner of social programs... in general this WOULD benefit the
majority of Americans, and contrary to the ***** the economic elite
spew, they'd still be disgustingly rich.
Here's a question to ponder:
What would Jesus say about the wealth distribution situation in America (or
for that matter the entire planet)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
07 Aug 2006 09:47:55 PM |
|
|
"Aidan" <aweraw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$gxpn3j$51d$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Here's a question to ponder:
What would Jesus say about the wealth distribution situation in America
(or
for that matter the entire planet)?
He already said it. :-)
You can't serve both God and money.
Wherever your treasure lies, there will your heart and thoughts be also.
That's Matthew 6:21. NLT
He'd also say that faith requires risk. Love requires risk. You've got too
many Christians fighting tooth and nail to maintain their "security" and
well being.
You wonder what we might have accomplished in the Middle East if we'd spent
$500 billion building schools and hospitals instead of invading Iraq and
building upon the ill will we'd developed over the last 100 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
08 Aug 2006 12:36:02 AM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"Aidan" <aweraw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$gxpn3j$51d$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Here's a question to ponder:
What would Jesus say about the wealth distribution situation in America
(or
for that matter the entire planet)?
He already said it. :-)
You can't serve both God and money.
Wherever your treasure lies, there will your heart and thoughts be also.
That's Matthew 6:21. NLT
I'm sure you presume to judge me based on conclusions you have drawn
about me. You have no idea what I do in my private life -- you have no
idea if money is important to me. You have no idea if I'm a
materialistic person. But you presume to judge me because you have
chosen to cherish those secular leftist values of yours, and have
concluded that I'm someone you don't like because I don't spout those
same class *envy* values.
He'd also say that faith requires risk. Love requires risk. You've got too
many Christians fighting tooth and nail to maintain their "security" and
well being.
You wonder what we might have accomplished in the Middle East if we'd spent
$500 billion building schools and hospitals instead of invading Iraq and
building upon the ill will we'd developed over the last 100 years.
We are building schoos and hospitals. Have you ever seen Gary Sinese's
website? There are a lot of people doing good work over there. Then
there are the whiners.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
08 Aug 2006 06:00:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:47:55 -0400, John Lemke wrote:
"Aidan" <aweraw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$gxpn3j$51d$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Here's a question to ponder:
What would Jesus say about the wealth distribution situation in America
(or
for that matter the entire planet)?
He already said it. :-)
You can't serve both God and money.
Wherever your treasure lies, there will your heart and thoughts be also.
That's Matthew 6:21. NLT
He'd also say that faith requires risk. Love requires risk. You've got too
many Christians fighting tooth and nail to maintain their "security" and
well being.
You wonder what we might have accomplished in the Middle East if we'd spent
$500 billion building schools and hospitals instead of invading Iraq and
building upon the ill will we'd developed over the last 100 years.
Heck, for that kind of money, we could have replaced all the
fundie-wahabist schools with secular ones. End of fundie-wahabist
indoctrination schools/camps.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
08 Aug 2006 12:29:52 AM |
|
|
Aidan wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Aidan wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Aidan wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Yet Steven has his head so far
up his own *****, that he denies this with a lame "deficit less
than
predicted, and so on and so forth". Hundreds of Billions of
dollars of yearly surpluses have been replaced by Hundreds of
Billions of dollars yearly in deficits...and this doesn't
include the Iraq war which could cost a trillion, or more by the
time it's over.
There is more revenue coming in to the treasury right now than
there was during the Clinton years. Deal with it.
SURPRISE! Another argument based on misdirection from Mr Douglas!
Increased revenues mean little to nothing when your expenditure
completely eclipses them. Can you guess what that results in?
Massive deficits.
No kidding! But the point I was responding to was eric's claim that
the tax cuts caused the deficits. Of course it is the spending that
is causing the deficits. Some of the leftists who post here probably
think I support Bush wholeheartedly on EVERYTHING he does. Well, as
I've pointed out several times, I have plenty of problems with Bush.
His low approval rating is not limited to people who disagree with
him on Iraq. I disagree with him on other things, but nevertheless,
I am part of his low approval rating. And the out-of-control
spending is part of it.
Well, everybody has their little qualms. For your information though,
and purely from a mathematical perspective, both tax cuts and
increased spending DO contribute to increased deficits.
Not if the tax cuts lead to increased revenue to the treasury because
of increased economic activity. It happened with JFK's tax cuts and
Reagan's tax cuts. Now it is happening again with Bush's tax cuts.
You mean that the super wealthy were waiting for tax cuts before they
felt comfortable dipping into their fortunes?
I doubt it.
I wouldn't expect a proponent of Communism to understand the dynamic
effect of tax policies on capitalistic economic activity.
Yeah Steve... you show that strawman who's boss!
It is a fact
that setting tax rates too high can cause a slowdown effect, while
lowering those tax rates can have a stimulative effect on economic
activity.
When you consider that as of 2001 the richest 20% of people in America own
84% of all the wealth (in fact, the top 1% owns around 35%), you start to
wonder: what good does any of this do for the other 80% who must divide the
remaining 16%?
Sure, those with vast reserves of wealth make more money, and the government
can come and make victorious speeches about the great job they're doing
with the economy... when the reality is that the divide between the rich
and the poor is growing at an alarming rate.
As the statement below mentions, capital gains tax rates were
cut in 1997, and the effect was a doubling of those revenues in four
years. And by the way, it's not just the super wealthy who benefit from
tax cuts; though I can't help but notice how those of you on the left
love to place class *envy* among your most cherished of values.
Disdain for greed != envy
Work that scarecrow
<*SNIP*>
The tax cuts are a red herring. The increased revenue is due
to a feedback loop bought about by increased expenditure.
More expenditure = more money paid to US corporations = increased revenue
There is a hint of truth to that, as federal expenditures can certainly
stimulate an economy in recession -- that works to a point, and then
it's up to the private sector economy to grow its way out of the
recession. That's what just happened in the past few years.
Keyword 'private'. The growth by and large occurs within the wealth pools
of the already supremely rich. Widening the socio-economic divide in no
way benefits the majority of Americans.
The problem is that the money going offshore far outweighs the money
cycling
through the feedback loop, and hence a deficit. When expenditure is
wound back, revenue will also drop, and you'll still have a massive
deficit.
If there is economic growth (which there is) revenues will continue to
increase as the private sector economy grows,
Translation: Rich people will continue to get richer. Poor people get
further in debt. But that's OK, so long as the rich man reaps more than
the poor guys borrow, and the numbers look nice.
The deficit won't go away in a hurry, unless the economic elite all of a
sudden decide to pay off everyones debts. Can you seriously see that ever
happening?
despite any winding back
of government expenditures -- as if that's going to happen, especially
if the Democrats take over. Democrats love social spending. They have
already said they want to spend *more* on the new Medicare prescription
drug benefit that debuted this year.
Well, if the insanely wealthy were taxed proportional to the percentage of
total wealth they owned, there'd be a fuckin ***** load of money to be spent
on all manner of social programs... in general this WOULD benefit the
majority of Americans, and contrary to the ***** the economic elite
spew, they'd still be disgustingly rich.
There's that cherished tenet of the left -- class *envy* at its finest.
Here's a question to ponder:
What would Jesus say about the wealth distribution situation in America (or
for that matter the entire planet)?
You know, unlike you and others, I'm not going to presume to speak for
what Jesus might think of the United States. I'm sure he'd think we're
not perfect -- but in looking around at the suffering of people living
under various tyrannies, he might not think we're doing so bad. And if
we really are so bad, why do we have people lining up to get in here?
My ancestors, for example, who did what it took to get here, and made
sure their children and grandchildren understood why we should be
grateful to live here. Unfortunately, there are too many ungrateful
people who were born here and take it all for granted. Have you ever
noticed how annoying ingrates can be? All they can do is whine about
how bad everything is -- maybe they should try some *utopia* like North
Korea for awhile, just to see what it's like.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
08 Aug 2006 07:03:55 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Aidan wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Aidan wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Aidan wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Yet Steven has his head so far
up his own *****, that he denies this with a lame "deficit less
than
predicted, and so on and so forth". Hundreds of Billions of
dollars of yearly surpluses have been replaced by Hundreds of
Billions of dollars yearly in deficits...and this doesn't
include the Iraq war which could cost a trillion, or more by
the time it's over.
There is more revenue coming in to the treasury right now than
there was during the Clinton years. Deal with it.
SURPRISE! Another argument based on misdirection from Mr
Douglas!
Increased revenues mean little to nothing when your expenditure
completely eclipses them. Can you guess what that results in?
Massive deficits.
No kidding! But the point I was responding to was eric's claim
that the tax cuts caused the deficits. Of course it is the
spending that is causing the deficits. Some of the leftists who
post here probably think I support Bush wholeheartedly on
EVERYTHING he does. Well, as I've pointed out several times, I
have plenty of problems with Bush. His low approval rating is not
limited to people who disagree with him on Iraq. I disagree with
him on other things, but nevertheless, I am part of his low
approval rating. And the out-of-control spending is part of it.
Well, everybody has their little qualms. For your information
though, and purely from a mathematical perspective, both tax cuts
and increased spending DO contribute to increased deficits.
Not if the tax cuts lead to increased revenue to the treasury
because of increased economic activity. It happened with JFK's tax
cuts and Reagan's tax cuts. Now it is happening again with Bush's
tax cuts.
You mean that the super wealthy were waiting for tax cuts before they
felt comfortable dipping into their fortunes?
I doubt it.
I wouldn't expect a proponent of Communism to understand the dynamic
effect of tax policies on capitalistic economic activity.
Yeah Steve... you show that strawman who's boss!
It is a fact
that setting tax rates too high can cause a slowdown effect, while
lowering those tax rates can have a stimulative effect on economic
activity.
When you consider that as of 2001 the richest 20% of people in America
own 84% of all the wealth (in fact, the top 1% owns around 35%), you
start to wonder: what good does any of this do for the other 80% who must
divide the remaining 16%?
Sure, those with vast reserves of wealth make more money, and the
government can come and make victorious speeches about the great job
they're doing with the economy... when the reality is that the divide
between the rich and the poor is growing at an alarming rate.
As the statement below mentions, capital gains tax rates were
cut in 1997, and the effect was a doubling of those revenues in four
years. And by the way, it's not just the super wealthy who benefit from
tax cuts; though I can't help but notice how those of you on the left
love to place class *envy* among your most cherished of values.
Disdain for greed != envy
Work that scarecrow
<*SNIP*>
The tax cuts are a red herring. The increased revenue is due
to a feedback loop bought about by increased expenditure.
More expenditure = more money paid to US corporations = increased
revenue
There is a hint of truth to that, as federal expenditures can certainly
stimulate an economy in recession -- that works to a point, and then
it's up to the private sector economy to grow its way out of the
recession. That's what just happened in the past few years.
Keyword 'private'. The growth by and large occurs within the wealth
pools
of the already supremely rich. Widening the socio-economic divide in no
way benefits the majority of Americans.
The problem is that the money going offshore far outweighs the money
cycling
through the feedback loop, and hence a deficit. When expenditure is
wound back, revenue will also drop, and you'll still have a massive
deficit.
If there is economic growth (which there is) revenues will continue to
increase as the private sector economy grows,
Translation: Rich people will continue to get richer. Poor people get
further in debt. But that's OK, so long as the rich man reaps more than
the poor guys borrow, and the numbers look nice.
The deficit won't go away in a hurry, unless the economic elite all of a
sudden decide to pay off everyones debts. Can you seriously see that
ever happening?
despite any winding back
of government expenditures -- as if that's going to happen, especially
if the Democrats take over. Democrats love social spending. They have
already said they want to spend *more* on the new Medicare prescription
drug benefit that debuted this year.
Well, if the insanely wealthy were taxed proportional to the percentage
of total wealth they owned, there'd be a fuckin ***** load of money to be
spent on all manner of social programs... in general this WOULD benefit
the majority of Americans, and contrary to the ***** the economic
elite spew, they'd still be disgustingly rich.
There's that cherished tenet of the left -- class *envy* at its finest.
Once again, since you seem to have skipped or ignored it the first time:
disdain for greed != envy
If you wished to be filthy rich, would you refer to such a status as
disgusting? You sure do like strawmen...
Here's a question to ponder:
What would Jesus say about the wealth distribution situation in America
(or for that matter the entire planet)?
You know, unlike you and others, I'm not going to presume to speak for
what Jesus might think of the United States.
What's to presume? I always thought the bible was fairly clear on what
Jesus thought about wealth distribution...
I'm sure he'd think we're
not perfect -- but in looking around at the suffering of people living
under various tyrannies, he might not think we're doing so bad.
He'd see the top 20% of the socio-economic ladder and tell them that they'd
have to redistribute all of their wealth in order to reach heaven. He may
even go further down the ladder.
And if
we really are so bad, why do we have people lining up to get in here?
Because they see life in the US as easy... but easy at who's expense? I
would guess that they generally don't consider that. Easy at the expense
of many other poor people the world over.
My ancestors, for example, who did what it took to get here, and made
sure their children and grandchildren understood why we should be
grateful to live here. Unfortunately, there are too many ungrateful
people who were born here and take it all for granted.
For granted is right! So many Americans take for granted that their gifted
life is in large part the result of 3rd world exploitation... or more
generally, exploitation of the poor.
Have you ever
noticed how annoying ingrates can be?
Yes. Like the incredibly wealthy! They sure seem to treat the people off
of whom their fortune is built (the workers) with ingratitude.
Drop the minimum wage, we need more labor for less money! Oh no, don't tax
me proportional to my incredible income, that would be a disincentive!
Don't spend tax money on social programs that might benefit everyone, no!
Just give that money back to us as tax cuts!
Fucking ingrates!
All they can do is whine about
how bad everything is -- maybe they should try some *utopia* like North
Korea for awhile, just to see what it's like.
You think NK is Utopia? Oh, it's just another strawman argument... gee, I
didn't see that one coming.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
09 Aug 2006 06:39:37 AM |
|
|
"Aidan" <aweraw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$reep3j$k0j$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Steven Douglas wrote:
Have you ever
noticed how annoying ingrates can be?
Yes. Like the incredibly wealthy! They sure seem to treat the people off
of whom their fortune is built (the workers) with ingratitude.
Drop the minimum wage, we need more labor for less money! Oh no, don't
tax
me proportional to my incredible income, that would be a disincentive!
Don't spend tax money on social programs that might benefit everyone, no!
Just give that money back to us as tax cuts!
Fucking ingrates!
All they can do is whine about
how bad everything is -- maybe they should try some *utopia* like North
Korea for awhile, just to see what it's like.
You think NK is Utopia? Oh, it's just another strawman argument... gee, I
didn't see that one coming.
Watch Steven's posts become even more weak and pathetic as time goes by and
events unfold. He's digging deep into the conservative cliché bag now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
09 Aug 2006 08:06:53 AM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"Aidan" <aweraw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$reep3j$k0j$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Steven Douglas wrote:
Have you ever
noticed how annoying ingrates can be?
Yes. Like the incredibly wealthy! They sure seem to treat the people =
off
of whom their fortune is built (the workers) with ingratitude.
Drop the minimum wage, we need more labor for less money! Oh no, don't
tax
me proportional to my incredible income, that would be a disincentive!
Don't spend tax money on social programs that might benefit everyone, n=
o!
Just give that money back to us as tax cuts!
Fucking ingrates!
All they can do is whine about
how bad everything is -- maybe they should try some *utopia* like North
Korea for awhile, just to see what it's like.
You think NK is Utopia? Oh, it's just another strawman argument... gee=
, I
didn't see that one coming.
Watch Steven's posts become even more weak and pathetic as time goes by a=
nd
events unfold. He's digging deep into the conservative clich=E9 bag now.
Maybe you can help me understand your secular leftist values -- I would
really like to understand why I should be encouraged to covet my
neighbor's walk-in-closet while I have an enclosed closet? Or why I
should be encouraged to covet my neighbor's second coat while I have
one coat? Please enlighten me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
09 Aug 2006 05:17:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:39:37 -0400, John Lemke wrote:
Watch Steven's posts become even more weak and pathetic as time goes by and
events unfold. He's digging deep into the conservative cliché bag now.
Judging from the timestamp on his follow-up, "as time goes by" ended up
being less than an hour and a half.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
09 Aug 2006 05:41:40 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.09.22.17.09.88178@tepidmail.com...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:39:37 -0400, John Lemke wrote:
Watch Steven's posts become even more weak and pathetic as time goes by
and
events unfold. He's digging deep into the conservative cliché bag now.
Judging from the timestamp on his follow-up, "as time goes by" ended up
being less than an hour and a half.
Woods
I don't get his follow-ups. Was it pathetic? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
09 Aug 2006 06:33:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:41:40 -0400, John Lemke wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.09.22.17.09.88178@tepidmail.com...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:39:37 -0400, John Lemke wrote:
Watch Steven's posts become even more weak and pathetic as time goes by
and
events unfold. He's digging deep into the conservative cliché bag now.
Judging from the timestamp on his follow-up, "as time goes by" ended up
being less than an hour and a half.
Woods
I don't get his follow-ups. Was it pathetic? :-)
What'd you do, killfile him? But, yeah, it was pretty lame stuff. It
wasn't anything memorable, slinging the leftist label around, stuff like
that.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
09 Aug 2006 06:41:17 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.09.23.33.45.521184@tepidmail.com...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:41:40 -0400, John Lemke wrote:
I don't get his follow-ups. Was it pathetic? :-)
What'd you do, killfile him? But, yeah, it was pretty lame stuff. It
wasn't anything memorable, slinging the leftist label around, stuff like
that.
Woods
Yeah, I killfiled him. Had enough. It was over some article he'd posted.
I finally took the time to read the whole thing. It was pretty easy to
shoot down. Steven's response was just childish game playing trash.
I think your response to it was "Um........wow."
With his posts being degraded to that level, something that was entirely
predictable, it's not worth sifting thru his posts anymore.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
09 Aug 2006 10:35:21 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:41:40 -0400, John Lemke wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.09.22.17.09.88178@tepidmail.com...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:39:37 -0400, John Lemke wrote:
Watch Steven's posts become even more weak and pathetic as time goes =
by
and
events unfold. He's digging deep into the conservative clich=E9 bag =
now.
Judging from the timestamp on his follow-up, "as time goes by" ended up
being less than an hour and a half.
Woods
I don't get his follow-ups. Was it pathetic? :-)
What'd you do, killfile him?
Yes, I saw his <plonk> when he plonked me. Since then he has continued
to take pot shots at me while pretending he's not reading my posts --
and so, I have continued to respond as if he is reading.
But, yeah, it was pretty lame stuff. It wasn't anything
memorable, slinging the leftist label around, stuff like that.
Gee, I wonder what he thought you'd say? As for Lemke, the beauty of
his "killfile" tactic is that he gets to read my posts without having
to come up with an answer. So be it. If he's so weak he can't deal with
my posts, then I've lost all respect for him -- especially while he's
continuing to take pot shots at me from behind this weak "killfile"
tactic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
08 Aug 2006 10:32:19 PM |
|
|
Aidan wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
What would Jesus say about the wealth distribution situation in America
(or for that matter the entire planet)?
You know, unlike you and others, I'm not going to presume to speak for
what Jesus might think of the United States.
What's to presume? I always thought the bible was fairly clear on what
Jesus thought about wealth distribution...
This reminds me of a wonderful song by activist folk singer David
Rovics, "Who Would Jesus Bomb?"
I've seen you in the markets
I've seen you in the streets
And at your political convention
Talking of your crusade
Talking of your nation
And other things too terrible to mention
And you proclaim your Christianity
You proclaim your love of God
You talk of apple pie and mom
Well I've just got one question
And I want an answer
Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
Maybe Jesus would bomb the Syrians
'Cause they're not Jews like him
Maybe Jesus would bomb the Afghans
On some kind of vengeful whim
Maybe Jesus would drive an M1 tank
And he would shoot Saddam
Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
I've seen you on the TV
And on the battleships
I've seen you in the house upon the hill
And I've heard you talking
About making the world safer
And about all the men you have to kill
And you speak so glibly
About your civilization
And how you have the moral higher ground
While halfway around the world
Your explosives smash the buildings
Ah, if you could only hear the sound
But maybe Jesus would sell land mines
And turn on his electric chair
Maybe Jesus would show no compassion
For his enemies in the lands way over there
Maybe Jesus would have flown the planes
That killed the kids in Viet Nam
Tell me, who would Jesus bomb
Yes I hear you shout with confidence
As you praise the lord
And you talk about this God you know so well
And you talk of Armageddon
And your final victory
When all the evil forces go to hell
Well you'd best hope you've chosen wisely
On the right side of the lord
And when you die your conscience it is clear
You'd best hope that your atom bombs
Are better than the sword
At the time when your reckoning is here
'Cause I don't think Jesus would send gunships into Bethlehem
Or jets to raze the towns of Timorese
I don't think Jesus would lend money to dictators
Or drive those SUV's
And I don't think Jesus would ever have dropped
A single ounce of napalm
So tell me, who would Jesus bomb?
Free mp3 at:
http://www.soundclick.com/util/DownloadSong.cfm?ID=1125356&ref=2
Stat.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
06 Aug 2006 05:27:18 PM |
|
|
Yawwwwn. Boy, Stevie, do you think that posting endlessly helps your
case? The more you talk the more ignorant you prove yourself to be.
Yawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn.
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
This is the willful Ignorance I'm talking about. The wealthy have been
given the biggest tax cuts in history, and has factually resulted in
the greatest deficit in world history.
Wrong, as usual you ignoramous. As a percentage of GDP, the current
deficit is not as high as some deficits during the late 80s and early
90s (when we had a Savings & Loan crisis). And it IS a fact that
revenue to the US Treasury is UP, whether you know it or not,
ignoramous.
Yet Steven has his head so far
up his own *****, that he denies this with a lame "deficit less than
predicted, and so on and so forth". Hundreds of Billions of dollars of
yearly surpluses have been replaced by Hundreds of Billions of dollars
yearly in deficits...and this doesn't include the Iraq war which could
cost a trillion, or more by the time it's over.
There is more revenue coming in to the treasury right now than there
was during the Clinton years. Deal with it.
eric.
P.S. I won't tell Hezbollah their ignorance started the war in
Lebabnon, because it didn't.
Israel has violated Lebanese terrority, and airspace dozens of times
since the Israeli retreat several years ago. Further, it is unclear
which side actually went into who's territory resulting in the capture
of the Israeli soldiers. That's a fact, Stevie..Time for you to go
bonkers now avoiding that fact.
That's NOT a fact -- this IS a fact:
[CBC excerpt] Eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two others
captured following a cross-border raid on Wednesday by the militant
group Hezbollah - a move that triggered Israeli troops to move into
Lebanon. [end excerpt]
[Washington Post excerpt] The fighting began after Hezbollah members
crossed the heavily fortified Israeli border Wednesday. In an ambush,
they killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two, whom they spirited
away to Lebanese territory. Five more soldiers were killed as the
Israeli military tried to recover the soldiers and equipment wrecked in
the pursuit. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the attack an
act of war, and Israel launched a campaign whose reach is greater than
any since it invaded Lebanon 24 years ago. [end excerpt]
[CBC excerpt] The abduction followed a rocket exchange along the
border. At least two rockets fired from south Lebanon exploded near the
Israeli town of Shlomi. [end excerpt]
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/12/israel-lebanon.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071300278_pf.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
06 Aug 2006 05:37:44 PM |
|
|
eric wrote:
Yawwwwn. Boy, Stevie, do you think that posting endlessly helps your
case? The more you talk the more ignorant you prove yourself to be.
Yawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn.
Okay, I already posted news articles to show you how ignorant you were
in your denial that Hezbollah started the conflict with Israel. Now
here's a news article to show you how ignorant you are about the tax
cuts:
[quoting] Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took
office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the
federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?ex=1278907200&en=a410f8c74d4700a5&ei=5090
Notice that "unexpected" leap in tax revenue. Unexpected because libs
never expect tax cuts to increase economic activity -- and thereby
increase revenue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
06 Aug 2006 05:45:43 PM |
|
|
No. You posted articles that showed how ignorant you are. Yawwnnnn.
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
Yawwwwn. Boy, Stevie, do you think that posting endlessly helps your
case? The more you talk the more ignorant you prove yourself to be.
Yawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn.
Okay, I already posted news articles to show you how ignorant you were
in your denial that Hezbollah started the conflict with Israel. Now
here's a news article to show you how ignorant you are about the tax
cuts:
[quoting] Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took
office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the
federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?ex=1278907200&en=a410f8c74d4700a5&ei=5090
Notice that "unexpected" leap in tax revenue. Unexpected because libs
never expect tax cuts to increase economic activity -- and thereby
increase revenue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
06 Aug 2006 05:51:02 PM |
|
|
eric wrote:
No. You posted articles that showed how ignorant you are. Yawwnnnn.
??? Please explain how proving you wrong makes me ignorant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
06 Aug 2006 06:58:05 PM |
|
|
No. You proved nothing. You merely proved how ignorant you are. Hey,
by the by Steve, didn't Saddam fly one of the planes into the World
Trade Centre? lol.
Steven Douglas wrote:
eric wrote:
No. You posted articles that showed how ignorant you are. Yawwnnnn.
??? Please explain how proving you wrong makes me ignorant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
06 Aug 2006 08:01:13 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154908685.532017.61220@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No. You proved nothing. You merely proved how ignorant you are. Hey,
by the by Steve, didn't Saddam fly one of the planes into the World
Trade Centre? lol.
Ha! No but there was a POSSIBILITY he might fly one into the Sears Tower
so we needed to end that uniquely urgent threat with extreme prejudice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes, Yes Steven :) |
06 Aug 2006 10:19:36 PM |
|
|
eric wrote:
No. You proved nothing. You merely proved how ignorant you are.
Please explain how proving you wrong makes me ignorant.
Hey, by the by Steve, didn't Saddam fly one of the planes into the
World Trade Centre?
Uh, no -- and this is an obvious, but weak, diversion from the fact
you're an ignoramous.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
