Palin's future?

Absolutely not.

I am implying that Chicago has among the nation's most liberal practices, and it is not surprising that the city is going down Mr. Toilet.

Detroit for years, as it plunged down the sewer, blamed the suburbs. It too had liberal leadership and is considered the nation's most liberal city.

My point here is not so much Obama but liberal policies in general. We can view the cities and states as laboratories of democracy (Brandeis and others) and I just don't think we want Chicago conditions throughout the country.

NYC is a fairly liberal city. So is San Francisco. Why are they not in the toilet?

I do not believe your argument has merit.

TerryRC wrote:NYC is a fairly liberal city. So is San Francisco. Why are they not in the toilet?

I do not believe your argument has merit.

NYC WAS a liberal city until Rudy started enforcing policies that the city government decried was unfair and in some cases unconstitutional. Before his conservative efforts to remove the smut and filth from Times Square and crack down on crime, NYC was in the toilet.

San Francisco has priced their property to the point that those who generally suffer from liberal policies, i.e. inner cities, are forced to live in Oakland.

Oakland is in the toilet.

Mikes argument is very valid.

sodbuster wrote:Sam would not make a good pimple on a trooper's ass.

In my opinion...

Gee Sherm, did all you troopers get together for a "Best Pimple on the Ass" contest, or what?

If those troopers would do the job they swore to do and are getting paid to do ...... they wouldn't be getting pimples on their ass.

Aaron wrote:
San Francisco has priced their property to the point that those who generally suffer from liberal policies, i.e. inner cities, are forced to live in Oakland.

Oakland is in the toilet.

As someone who has lived in both Oakland and SF, I can tell you that either is far superior to almost any city east of the Sierra Nevadas. Much of Oakland is actually quite nice, particularly above the MacArthur fwy. San Francisco can be quite expensive, but it's worth it. No one is "forced" to live in either place; they both just beat the hell out of most of the rest of the world.

Let's do a little comparison:

- WV has coal trucks; SF has cable cars

- WV has humidity in the summer and snow in the winter; Oakland has neither

- WV is surrounded by Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; California has the Pacific on one side and REAL mountains on the other (can you think of any other state where one can catch world class surf on the morning and ski world class slopes in the afternoon?)

- WV has UVW; SF has UCSF, and Oakland is right next to UC Berkeley (and there's also a little school in the South Bay known as Stanford)

- The San Francisco Bay is widely known as having some of the best sailing weather in the world (albeit, somewhat challenging to the novice); WV has ???????

And I haven't even mentioned Peet's coffee, sourdough, Dungeness crab, or some of the best chinese food this side of Beijing.

SamCogar wrote:

sodbuster wrote:Sam would not make a good pimple on a trooper's ass.

In my opinion...

Gee Sherm, did all you troopers get together for a "Best Pimple on the Ass" contest, or what?

If those troopers would do the job they swore to do and are getting paid to do ...... they wouldn't be getting pimples on their ass.

Sam sounds like quite the expert on ass pimples. Well, I suppose that everyone has to have a hobby.

bmd wrote:
My understanding is that the kid asked (literally, not figuratively) to be Tasered. Apparently he wanted to know what it felt like. Granted, it was still pretty dumb for Wooten to do it, but (apparently) not malicious.

HORSESHIT you say.

If it were me or a druggie with a taser .......... that tasered yours or Sherman's 10 year old child because the child wanted to know what it felt like, ...... neither one of you would be protecting my ass by saying "it was still pretty dumb to do it, but (apparently) not malicious."

Pricks like you all would call out the whole SP force to track me down, handcuff and chain me, ...... and throw my ass in jail ....... after the Magistrate went off Duty just so I would have to spend the night in jail.

But one of your own, you would protect at all costs, no matter what they did or you had to do.

.

bmd wrote:

Stephanie wrote:What is ridiculous is that a man can use a taser on a 10 year old child, threaten to shoot a senior citizen, have a restraining order placed against him for domestic violence and retain his job in law enforcement.

THAT is ridiculous.

My understanding is that the ................

YADA, .... YADA, ...... YADA ........ and a phoney POS you are.

bmd, ..... where in the hell was your understanding when you were querying me about the "half-truths"?

TerryRC wrote:What is ridiculous is that a man can use a taser on a 10 year old child, threaten to shoot a senior citizen, have a restraining order placed against him for domestic violence and retain his job in law enforcement.

The kid asked to be tasered as he was thinking about becoming a cop and wanted to know what it felt like.

The Child Protective Services should take your children away from you ..... if you don't have any better sense than that.



.

bmd wrote:

sodbuster wrote:Sam would not make a good pimple on a trooper's ass.

In my opinion...

Sam sounds like quite the expert on ass pimples. Well, I suppose that everyone has to have a hobby.

Right bmd, ..... Sherman admits he knows a good ass pimple when he sees one ..... and you extrapolate his comment to me being an expert on ass pimples.

Just goes to show one that you are little more than a devious dishonest prick who will do or say anything in an attempt to malign, discredit and/or ruin the good name and character of an honest person.


Got any naked pictures of your wife, bmd?



.

.

SamCogar wrote:
Right bmd, ..... Sherman admits he knows a good ass pimple when he sees one ..... and you extrapolate his comment to me being an expert on ass pimples.

Just goes to show one that you are little more than a devious dishonest prick who will do or say anything in an attempt to malign, discredit and/or ruin the good name and character of an honest person.


Got any naked pictures of your wife, bmd?

I missed you too, Sammy.


xxxooo
bmd

bmd wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Oakland is in the toilet.

As someone who has lived in both Oakland and SF,
Let's do a little comparison:

Yes Bill, let’s do a little comparison, Oakland to Chicago, which you concede is "in the toilet".

Of all the major comparisons on crime, Oakland is a much worse place to live then Chicago. Seems there's really not much of a comparison. Both are floating in the toilet as the because of liberal policies.

Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:
Oakland, CA Chicago, IL National

Murder: 36.4 16.4 7
Forcible Rape: 76.72 32.2
Robbery: 886.1 555.1 205.8
Aggravated Assault: 906.1 610.4 336.5
Burglary: 1271.2 845.2 813.2
Larceny Theft: 2187.6 2930.1 2601.7
Vehicle Theft: 2645 763.8 501.5

Perhaps you'd like to try another city?

Perhaps Charleston Bill even though I don't live there and really don't care for the city that much.

Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:


Oakland, CA Charleston, WV National

Murder: 36.4 3.9 7
Forcible Rape: 76.72 37.09 32.2
Robbery: 886.1 218.7 205.8
Aggravated Assault: 906.1 732.1 336.5
Burglary: 1271.2 1423.2 813.2
Larceny Theft: 2187.6 5081.9 2601.7
Vehicle Theft: 2645 443.2 501.5

Actual Reported Population and Crimes:


Oakland, CA Charleston, WV
Population: 398,834 51,221
Murder: 145 2
Forcible Rape: 306 19
Robbery: 3534 112
Aggravated Assault: 3614 375
Burglary: 5070 729
Larceny Theft: 8725 2603
Vehicle Theft: 10549 227

source

Here's my question on the kid being tasered. It's been stated here twice the kid ask for it. Does anyone have a link to that because I haven't heard it and no offense, but considering the sources here, I'd rather read it myself and make my own judgement.

I think Palin's future is governor of Alaska.

I am interested in seeing how similar President Obama will be to Candidate Obama. I think when the latte liberal sees what income redistribution is really like, she's not going to think it such a grand idea after all.

Frankly that's where I see this country heading anyway. Almost better to have it done under Obama's watch, so the people have a figurehead to blame (when they should be blaming the Congress and the guilty on the left and the complacent on the right).

Incidentally, bmd, I'm wondering if you want to get in on a wager I have with Sherm.

Obama says he wants to cut taxes on 95% of Americans. Being an American who does not have to pay national income taxes, I wonder how he is going to cut taxes that I do not pay (as is the case for 37% or so of the population).

But here is my wager. Based on the 2007 tax calculator at hrblock, my family of 5 which makes 33000 dollars per year gets 3988 dollars from the Feds in a "refund." Sherm is double or nothing on a previously lost bet, so I will bet you biscuits and gravy at Tudor's, bmd, that by January of 2010, someone with my income will either be receiving less in a "refund" or paying national income taxes, or paying more in social security taxes.

That is, at the low end, I wager that the Obama administration will raise my taxes (or lower my "refund") by January of 2010. My only provision is that welfare does not count, so no weaseling out by saying that welfare spending has risen.

Care to take the bet?

The Child Protective Services should take your children away from you ..... if you don't have any better sense than that.

Why didn't the mother say something about it when the incident happened rather than waiting until divorce time?

Who really needs child services knocking on their door, me or her?

Typical Sammy attack. Keep 'em coming.

TerryRC wrote:The Child Protective Services should take your children away from you ..... if you don't have any better sense than that.

Why didn't the mother say something about it when the incident happened rather than waiting until divorce time?

Who really needs child services knocking on their door, me or her?

Typical Sammy attack. Keep 'em coming.

Oh that is rich. An individual with a gun and a badge tasers his 10 y/o stepson and you twist it around to being the mother's fault. I can't even believe my eyes, Terry. Honestly, I expect so much better from you.

Hey BMD,

Do you want to bet or don't you?

I'm calling out Obama as a member of a family of 5 getting 33K a year, and I say I will either have a lower "rebate" or have to pay taxes, WELFARE NOTWITHSTANDING.

I'm getting Sherm to go double on biscuits and gravy. Do you want to see what happens, bmd? Do you want to put Tudor's biscuits where your mouth is?

SheikBen wrote:Hey BMD,

Do you want to bet or don't you?

I'm calling out Obama as a member of a family of 5 getting 33K a year, and I say I will either have a lower "rebate" or have to pay taxes, WELFARE NOTWITHSTANDING.

I'm getting Sherm to go double on biscuits and gravy. Do you want to see what happens, bmd? Do you want to put Tudor's biscuits where your mouth is?

Your "rebate" is just welfare by another name. Therefore, it would appear that you think that Obama isn't enough of a Socialist for your tastes. How much welfare do you think you deserve and for how long?

More to the point, do you think that a GOP lead by the likes of Palin would (or should) promote policies to give you larger handouts?

Palin isn't the nominee. Perhaps you should concentrate on McCain.

He can't. The decision between McCain/Obama isn't much of a comparison. Even considering my overall thoughts on McCain, he's still so much more qualified then Obama that there is no comparison.

This is not a decision between two men. This is a decision between to parties at a time of economic turmoil and overall dissatisfaction of the setting party. Obama is not winning the McCain/Obama comparison, he's capitalizing on the democratic/Republican comparison and Bill misguidedly believes that because Obama will win, Americans are choosing democrats over Republicans.

He doesn't have a clue. Going back 11 elections, this will be the fourth election won by a democratic. Of those 4 wins, one was a sitting President and 3 were the direct result of American dissatisfaction with the Republican party that lasted on average, 3 years and in each case, once democrats had control, it didn't take long for Americans to return Republicans to power.

Bill thinks this election is the beginning of the end of the Republican Party. As I said on another thread, his ignorance remains intact.

bmd wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Hey BMD,

Do you want to bet or don't you?

I'm calling out Obama as a member of a family of 5 getting 33K a year, and I say I will either have a lower "rebate" or have to pay taxes, WELFARE NOTWITHSTANDING.

I'm getting Sherm to go double on biscuits and gravy. Do you want to see what happens, bmd? Do you want to put Tudor's biscuits where your mouth is?

Your "rebate" is just welfare by another name. Therefore, it would appear that you think that Obama isn't enough of a Socialist for your tastes. How much welfare do you think you deserve and for how long?

More to the point, do you think that a GOP lead by the likes of Palin would (or should) promote policies to give you larger handouts?

AHHHH fascinating!

So Obama's 95% figure is bogus, indeed. I cannot get a tax cut as I do not pay income taxes, and you have admitted that you don't expect Obama's "socialism" to add cash to my coffers.

I would feel bad about taking the additional child tax credits and what not had I not been paying income taxes to wasted efforts for so many years. The last time I got a tax increase was as a starving graduate student paying added payroll taxes under President Clinton.

And when I predict that Obama will not make MY life any easier (which is what he says he will do), you speak of welfare by another name. Perhaps it is welfare, and perhaps it ought to be eliminated. However, that is not the Democratic platform by a long shot.

It would seem by your response that you do not want to take my bet, and that would seem to indicate that you DO expect Obama will either give me more taxes or take away my free money from the government.

Here's how I see this breaking down.

First the marriage penalty will be reinstated, and then the 10% tax bracket will be eliminated when the Bush tax cuts expire. THEN (here's the fun part), he will cut taxes a "little" and then claim to have kept his campaign promise.

No, bmd, I don't think that people should take money from Stephanie's family and my brother's family to fund my existence. I do, however, love the idea of wealthy liberals in San Francisco sending their dollars to red state America. I should get them a fruit basket.

Mike,

We got EIC last year. lol

My husband quit his job (rubber paychecks) and was unemployed for a couple of weeks, then took a p/t job to keep the hounds at bay for a couple of months, so we qualified last year. So, our brothers funded both of our existances.

Well Mike, just fyi, I was watching a Palin speech on taxes and the economy yesterday and guess what?

She was ridiculing the idea of people getting "rebates" when they dont even pay any taxes to start with.

So it's not a rebate it's a redistribution. Yada yada.

And the crowd was going wild with that glazed over rightwing look in their eyes.

While I was watching I said to myself I bet half those people doing all that cheering pay no income tax.

And probably get a "rebate" (redistribution) themselves.

And then I started wondering who is crazier, me or the rightwing fanatics.?

As a liberal, I do believe in some measure of income redistribution.

And I pay several thousand dollars a year in taxes.

But many of the so-called conservatives not only dont pay taxes but also get a so-called "rebate" for several grand.

And all the while they let the demagogues fill them with spite and resentment because people even worse off than they are get a little bit too.

And then get on their hi-horse and rail against "income redistribution".

So I guess one could make the case we are all crazy...