Teh Ricer Civic!

Actually i was referring to the young republicans that i see. Many of em are basically just libertarians

Ah so close! Its the Titanic and its other sister ship, the Olympic. The picture above that one is the Olympic too, which saw service in WWI and was finally scrapped in the mid 30s.

I think she does little things here and there.

I always thought Amanda Bynes was the best one from that generation. 'Course i just liked the Amanda Show back when i was younger.

I dont know a single white person who wouldn't crack up laughing if they were actually called a Honkey.

'Tis true, Bush ruined the GOP. But it appears as though the GOP may be recovering from its Far Right affliction. I believe in the future it will be far more moderate.

Your analogy is neat but its wrong on a few levels. 1) Captain Smith was informed of icebergs up ahead, however he ordered that the ship remain on full ahead, the was intent on breaking the record (similar to democrats not listening to the warning in early 2005) 2) there was no gash on the titanic, the rivets popped which allowed water in through the seams. 3) the watertight doors (the regulators) operated just fine unfortunately the ship was not designed for flooding of more than i believe 6 to 8 of its compartments and still stay afloat (this is not the case in todays situation). 4) Smith ordered evacuations, women and children first. Unfortunately many passengers believed the ship was unsinkable and stayed aboard (initial lifeboats left less than half full), 5) If the ship was up in the air, the only purpose of having the engine rooms running would be to power the electrical system, damage checks were done nearly immediately, SOS (which was a new code at the time and had replaced the old CQD distress signal) was sent out. The closest ship, the California's radio operator had gone to bed shortly before the signal was sent out. Other ships received the signal but did not want to tread through these iceberg laden waters. The Carpathia's captain decided to do something about it and sailed full ahead to the Titanic's position. 6) Captain Smith went down with his ship. So perty, so perty old reliable was. and COME ON PEOPLE the Global Warming/Environment/Energy etc McCain and Obama say damn near the same exact things about both! Its different, but its not different enough to be a game changer. On a sidenote: Whats interesting about this picture?

That point has been brought up by even the 4-5 of us who are actually participating. But there is some actual debate going on... well not in THIS thread but in the other thread there is. And Satty, Truman's approval rating was 36% when he left office. Only time will see if Bush truly was god-awful (which it probably will), or if on the .002% chance that it shows that he actually was a good president.

Meh, id rather go squirrel hunting with some .22 rat shot.

IRAQ is a near pointless topic now. We already have troop withdrawal tables, what more do you want? The only difference now is that under McCain you can be assured that it will successfully be transferred over to Iraq. Under Obama you are only assured that we will leave, perhaps not successfully. Spending over in Iraq, as a difference between the two, will not be very significant, certainly not an extra trillion. So actual leadership is laughable now?

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 'bout $32,000 Although, i WILL CONCEDE to you, that if you tax the rich enough (but not enough that they simply leave) they may be more inclined to pay others more wages (because thats an expense and so can be written off against income). But im not 100% sure that would happen. But on the other hand, if they pay more wages and people have more money, then wouldn't the price of stuff go up? And if it does where did that get us?

Heres an analogy. If a guy comes up to a rich guy, sticks a gun to his head, and says, give me your money. That man now has his money and that's income redistribution. The government can essentially "stick a gun to your head" legally. The other problem with this is, if this poor family is now receiving federal aid (forever i'm guessing) wouldn't they be at least somewhat less inclined to work harder? I would be infinitely more in favor of "income redistribution" through favorable tax code that allows contributions (unlike the current tax code where some multimillionaire can donate to some lame ass art society, which benefits no one except themselves), and get a tax break for it. Mainly because if you have the government do it, you can be assured that a lot of that money will be wasted through inefficiency. It's very similar to having your parents do everything for you. Sure they can do it, but since they aren't you they probably wont do it quite as well to fit you, wasting time and efficiency. If i was a millionaire, i guarantee you that 70% of my paycheck would go to donations (i am a man of simple means). But if already 40% of my paycheck is going to the gubment to give to others, i am less inclined to donate myself. Of course i realize that many millionaires are more greedy than i am and so this is not representative of society.

Finally found an article that describes how Bush's tax cuts were progressive http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html and this decade is a BAD EXAMPLE. Because 1) WE ARE RUNNING A MASSIVE DEFICIT, and 2) We were hit by a recession early and late. 1) is an example of Keynesian economics, the government is effectively providing jobs to the defense contractors to make guns and stuff, which clearly is not really working out so hot for the economy. a further example of 1) is that there is a lot of money thats not in the economy cause its tied up in debt. We at some point there are max government revenues, i don't know where that point is, nor do i know how it affects the different classes differently. And finally, due to the deficit, i dont mind them raising taxes, but i DO MIND income redistribution. That is grossly unfair. Obama's plan is INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, one of the main tenants of Socialism.

Your are correct in your assumption that businesses wouldn't really want to start up in a slow market (unless they are opening up a discount mega store). Supply side economics work best when they are put into place after an economy bottoms out and starts to lift itself back up. Proper use of can lead to a prolonged expansionary period. Keynesian economics may work in a time of economic troubles, but it will either a) not work or do very little, or b) create TOO MUCH GDP growth which would lead to terrible inflation. There is a fine line somewhere in there where it might work well, but who knows where that line is? So, you got Obama's income redistribution plan, which Americans will probably use to pay off debt. So we will see zero extra growth in the first like year. Then it may help us to get out of recession, then when we are out of recession, further growth will be slower because small businesses will be taxed up the wazoo in same cases, and i guarantee you people will come up with very clever ways to get around paying the extra taxes if their business gets too big. And despite what you say about supply side, if you give business the ability to immediately expense purchases for say a few years, this gives businesses a LOT of incentives to perhaps update their current machinery or whatever (it will ultimately lower their taxes). This in turn gives suppliers a lot of cash, who can then go around and update their machinery, giving other suppliers cash. As these businesses get some cash, they may be able to pay their employees a little more, who will then go out to stores and buy stuff. When they buy stuff at stores the stores gets extra revenue and well.... you get it.

It is incredibly painful for a cow if they are not milked.

Mmm pasteurized breast milk. I wonder if they will fortify it with Vitamin D?

...But if we get back on topic, ManBearPig will destroy us all

If you really want to be safe from Virus's use Windows 3.1, its so old they dont write stuff for it anymore.

Rocky

Maybe if it was a .22LR chain gun... i wouldnt wanna use a vulcan cannon to kill a critter, to damn expensive. Hell a .50BMG costs like over a dollar a round.

LOL, doah your right im stupid. I didnt realize that was a Browning 50cal Here's the badboy you want.

Aww, i wanted to mount giant NERF guns on it and strafe stuff

Is it possible to buy an old P-38 Lightning?

Not technically, i dont care to go into details though.

Cause foreign relations with Canada is like trying to get along with a soft nice fluffy Samoyed as opposed to a rottweiler or a very starved German shepherd.