timesjoke

No. You said people who pay taxes should not be "allowed" to vote. That is the difference and why it isn't just a case of semantics. And all along I thought I said people "who don't" pay taxes should not vote........imagine that. You see Joe, the more you try to dance around semantics, the more mistakes you make. The point is and way my wishful thinking that some people not vote. You was also entertaining the wishful thinking that some people not vote. It is the exact same thing and every attempt you or anyone else try to paint my wishful thinking as somehow different from your wishful thinking prove they only take issue with what I say because I say it and not because you don't also think the same exact way. Niether one of us truly wanted to stop people from voting by force, it was just both of us shooting off our mouths. Yes, the glorious and perfect IWS shared a similar 'wishful thinking' moment with Times, it must be the end of the world to have to admit that for you.

So you made one attempt, failed, and now what are you doing? Licking your wounds and feeling "safe" sucking on the teat? Do you plan to try again or just keep playing it safe with mommy and daddy? So yu tried and failed and gave up......you never figured out how to live on your own, this is my point, all you did was get out there, run out of money, and run home to the boobie. Now if you had got a second job, moved to a less expensive place, got a roomy, or figured out how to reduce some bills, then you would have learned something, but all you learned was how to give up and run back to the tittie. Reality? The policy of not responding to a fire unless the address is registered as paying their $75 is cut and dry. You are the idiot trying to make up sh!t that is not there, not me. I'm not making anything up, it is their policy that dispatch will not pass a call through to the fire department if the address is not on their list of who has paid for fire services. I am talking about the policy, you are the guy trying to make sh!t up to try and paint the Government in a better light because you believe in and worship government as always right, I don't. Let's go back to the quote I used to again make the best point: I want fire fighters to be firefighters and buracrats to be buracrats. Public safety is one place we should not be picking and choosing who to help in times of emergencies....IMHO.

can't explain it any better than that. apparently TJ is more of a progressive/liberal than we would like to let on... We said the exact same thing, I gave wishful thinking, IWS gave wishful thinking that some people should not vote. Any other attempt to paint it any other way is just semantics. By the way eddo, I said people who don't pay taxes should not vote, how is that liberal or progressive? My reason for it was that people who don't pay taxes don't concern themselves with the cost of operating a goverment or paying for the programs. If my want came true, not one liberal or progressive would ever get into public office again. Poor eddo, failed attempt to flame once again, lol. I see your back on that bandwagon crap again eddo, bored?

So in your mind, there is no difference between someone who says, "I don't think it's necessary for people to have firearms." and someone who says, "I think the government should ban and confiscate firearms." That is not what you said so the comparison is irrelevant. You said some people should not vote, you seem to be trying to hide behind how that is accomplished but how else do you stop people from voting if not through the government Joe? Maybe you were just speaking out of frustration Joe? Maybe you were just saying how you wished it to be but would never actually want that if you could force it to happen? Well guess what Joe, that is exactly what I said and you would not accept that I was just wishful thinking so how is it different for you now that you are talking about not wanting some people to vote? Hypocrite. It is the same thing and a very relevant comparison. I have a belief but don't want to limit anyone's rights. You have a belief but want to limit who has the right to do something. Just like one person has the belief that people don't need firearms but doesn't want to take their right to own one away. The other person has the belief that the government should decide who can possess a firearm by limiting the right to do so. I advocated personal "choice". You advocated government "force". Bot of our comments were what we would like to have seen some people not voting, the reasons for our desire for some people not voting were not the same, but our desire was exactly the same. Anything else you try to say is semantics designed to hide the truth Joe. I was just wishful thinking just like you were wishful thinking. I know you did not really want to stop anyone from voting, just like I never really wanted that, we both were just voicing frustrations. We are both human and both allowed to delve into a little bit of wishful thinking now and then without being a monster.

So in your mind, there is no difference between someone who says, "I don't think it's necessary for people to have firearms." and someone who says, "I think the government should ban and confiscate firearms." That is not what you said so the comparison is irrelevant. You said some people should not vote, you seem to be trying to hide behind how that is accomplished but how else do you stop people from voting if not through the government Joe? Maybe you were just speaking out of frustration Joe? Maybe you were just saying how you wished it to be but would never actually want that if you could force it to happen? Well guess what Joe, that is exactly what I said and you would not accept that I was just wishful thinking so how is it different for you now that you are talking about not wanting some people to vote? Hypocrite.

Semantics IWS. You said you believe some people should not vote. I said some people should not vote, the intent is the same, your trying to hide behind an extra word or two instead of looking at the spirit of what we both said. Both of us offer examples of how we feel some people should not vote. You believe some people should not vote if they don't meet your standard of education, I believe some people should not vote if they are only going to vote for whoever will give them the most "free money". Uour reasons are different, but our point is exactly the same....... Some people should not vote. I say it, you say it, we agree Joe, lol.

It's California, what else do you expect?

is this really all that hard a concept for you to grasp TJ??? or is this another of your "social experiments"??? And that is the same point I made, the voters will vote for who gives them the most "free" Government money, not vote based on their knowledge of the issues and what is right for America in general. And you believe those people should vote? And there is my point, if you guys would stop with the automatic knee-jerk attacks and actually read what I am saying you would see I am saying exactly what IWS is saying and for the exact same reason. The direction the groups vote uninformed is different, I give you that, but I expressed that I did not want certain people to vote because they would vote responsibly, IWS said he did not want people to vote because they would not vote responsibly, we agree completely on the concept of some people not voting. My only issue is when I said some peopel should not vote, Joe tried to take me to the woodshed saying it was wrong to say some people should not vote and what would result is a "ruling class". Well if IWS wants to set a standard for voting to be only those who meet up to his standard of education then is that not also creating a "ruling class"? By the way, just to give context, IWS did not even vote in the last Presidential election. He is the kind of guy I was talking about needing to get out and vote. People like IWS who usually is fairly conservative tend to also neglect their duty to vote and help put conservative minded people in office. Many times they get discouraged because their choices are not "perfect" but by being discouraged, they actually help the Progressives win elections. If most Americans voted, no matter what their political leaning were, the politicians would listen to the public more.

By us yes, but you forget that our being involved is the only thing keeping North and south Korea from fighting. You also forget the only reason the Middle East does not attack Israel is because they know we will help them. If we follow the isolationist route you want to use, massive and "trade killing" wars will result. Right now even a small battle results in huge disruption in oil sales and we see prices at the pump spike up. A battle in the middle east with Israel will stop oil trade almost completely so what do you think that will mean to the average American hugo? People have a hard enough time paying to heat their homes now, prices will spike 20 times over what they are now and rationing will be needed once the war in the Middle East starts. What then hugo? Because of America. There was no Hitler on the horizon just before Hitler showed up either hugo. It actually costs less to maintain a small presence all the time than to mobilize a huge force to try and dislodge an enemy force already dug in. See D-day for an example. Just like some people can tell a lie that Hitler was already beaten before America showed up and believe they are engaged in intelligent debate. If Hitler was already beaten, why did so many American troops die fighting the Germans? If they were already beaten, surely the newly arrived American troops would have easily walked through the German troops right? Obviously you once again demonstrate how you know nothing and only want to twist a discussion to justify your radical beliefs. In this case you want America to go isolationist, so you make up crap like Hitler was already beat to try and justify us now turning our backs on the world. Tell me something hugo, did you know that without the help of the French America would not now be independent? America and all we stand for was only made possible because an outside Country helped us to find freedom. They crossed an Ocean and gave us what we needed to be free. Now it is your position that America should turn it's back on the rest of the world now that we have what we want so screw everyone else?

I believe it was you who described yourself as lazy kid, not me, all I am doing is agreeing with you and offering you some advice based on that admission. You are way, way too old to be living at home but you can't figure out how to be an adult and survive without your parents taking care of you like a 16 year old. If you can't figure out how to manage your own finances to live on your own, you can never understand a much more complex financial issue like city budgets and taxes kid. You have to learn to walk before you can learn to run, and you are still living with mommy and daddy so at this point you only have the crawling down in life. Reality? The policy of not responding to a fire unless the address is registered as paying their $75 is cut and dry. You are the idiot trying to make up sh!t that is not there, not me.

Hard to have much international trade with the world at war. We turned a blind eye on the mess of Hitler building strength, how did that work out for us? As I said before, the conditions to go isolationist do not exist anymore. We simply can't do it anymore.

is this really all that hard a concept for you to grasp TJ??? or is this another of your "social experiments"??? And that is the same point I made, the voters will vote for who gives them the most "free" Government money, not vote based on their knowledge of the issues and what is right for America in general.

You are giving up, you just toss up your hands, use whatever excuse you can come up with and let your parents bail you out. Get another job, go out and actively find a decent roommate, the only thing stopping you from being an independent adult is you. But that is exactly what you are saying, you cry about how hard life is so you run to the boobie so your parents can help you live. Without your parents to fall back on, where would you be? Sure you are, you already admitted you would have to pay more on your own and you can't do it so you are a leech. How about that laundry and the food I know your parents are feeding you? You are basically living your life like any 16 year old with an after school job. But that is an excuse, you do have a choice, you just don't want to work that hard to make that choice. Either you are an independent adult or you are not. You said yourself you are lazy and sit around a lot, very overweight too if I remember correctly. Stop shoving your money down your neck as one example, get off the couch and go out to find a better job as another one, a second job if you can't find one better one. There are always options joker. To be honest I blame your parents too, they are enabling your sloth. Then go find someone else, actively look, don't just sit at mommies house eating cheesy poofs and playing video games and expect you will find solutions to your problems. Basically your life is on hold, treading water and living life like a teenager. They value life right below the value of a $75 payment. No payment, no consideration of human life.

Agreed. I agree with this too, some reductions are reasonable, as long as we keep some in place for appearances and deterrent value. I would say we can safely drop around half our over seas bases but the only problem is if we have a big problem we can't deal with it from the reduced numbers of troops. What we would have to do is beef up our reserves numbers so we can easily bring up our manpower if something big happens. I don't know about that, sometimes we should be there just for stability sake even if people don't like us. What I would like to see is someone other than America pay for things like UN actions. It is easy for the UN to say do this or do that when America is paying for everything but if we demanded everyone who votes for something must help pay for it, suddenly things would change. I also think the UN should be moved to another Country, why should America absorb hundreds of millions of dollars in protection costs for delegates? There was a story about millions of dollars in unpaid parking tickets by visiting delegates too. Let them go someplace else.

That's a flat out lie. Okay, I admit I took this to mean the people would not vote right because in your opinion they were ignorant and uninformed. So I ask you to explain and if I was wrong I will gladly say I am sorry. So you mention being ignorant and unformed as your reason some people should not vote so if that does not mean they will vote incorrectly what did you mean? How was being ignorant and unformed related to how they will vote mean they should not vote in your opinion?

Years ago when America had some production at home, we could have gone isolationist, today we cannot. When there is a small conflict in the world, oil prices shoot up, move troops out of everywhere in the world and you eliminate the ability for the relative peace we now see in the world and conflicts will happen. North/South Korea is a great example. Leave Israel on their own? Sounds good but once the Muslims know America will not help, Israel will be forced to defend themselves. America is not defending Israel right now, it is protecting everyone else because they will light up the Middle East if they are cornered, and see what happens to oil prices after the entire middle east is turned into a sheet of glass. At the very least we need the ability to provide for our own energy and oil needs before we can consider turning our backs on the world. No, the answer is not to go isolationist, the answer is to do what we are doing smarter. Just the IRS removal could allow America to slowly catch up on our debt if we freeze spending at the 2008 level. We can find other things to eliminate like the department of agriculture and save even more hundreds of millions a year. There are real and easy reductions that we can make if we are just willing to deflate the size of the Government.

Direct quote and no other way to take it than he believes some people should not vote. The reason we both gave for this is different, but the desire for some people to vote and other people to nbot vote is exactly the same. All the excuses and personal attacks do not change what he said. You are wasting a lot of time on things that have nothing to do with the fact that Joe is a hypocrite. He believes some people shouldn't vote of their own volition. You believe in limiting who has the ability to vote. The two are totally different, kid. Bull, Joe clearly said he felt some people should not vote because of the "way" they would vote, that is the exact same reason I offered.

In my life I was making my own money with a worm farm at 12, worked farms doing tobacco, watermelons, hay, etc... and saved up enough money that when I turned 16 I paid cash for my first Truck. I joined the Army at 18 and have taken care of myself, sometimes working three jobs, ever sense. So when you say life is too hard for you at 21 and you can't make it without your parents helping you I just don't have much sympathy for you to be honest. You may pay rent but it is less than you would pay on your own so you are still leeching off your parents, then there is laundry and food I am sure mommy helps you with that you would have to pay for if you lived on your own. I asked you what age is too old to be living with your parents in your opinion Joker....so tell me, what age do you think a adult should be out on their own taking care of themselves? 25? 30? Give me a number Joker. I have noticed you are still unwilling to consider the concept of how things could be different for the future. You have spent all of your time trying to justify why it is a good thing for firefighters to stand and watch homes burn. For you the only option is to defend what is currently happening instead of trying to discuss how a compromise can be made to both allow fire fighters to fight fires, and also for the city to get enough money to cover expenses. You seem blissfully content with whatever policy a Government sets and if that means a person is trapped in a burning home and allowed to die because they did not pay $75, then so be it, you just don't care because you trust in Government completely and if the bureaucracy says it is okay, then you say it is okay.

Yeah, I'm kind of a twisted individual when it comes to my sexual endeavors. But at least I can still get it up. Jealous, TJ? Whatever tripps your trigger Joker, if you like poo in a sexual way, then so be it. Maybe it is the fact I only connect sex with love but I have never had an issue with showing my love for the one I care about, I don't have to 'gin up' arousal the way you do my friend. I never said I liked poop, TJ. Paraphilia is a blanket term for anything that isn't "normal sex". And perhaps I love my girl, but I love her even more when I'm choking her out and vomiting on her ass? I'm not quite that twisted, though. And thank god, man. I love me some sex, but that would just be strange. And I show her my love just fine. She gets to see it right before I slap her in the face with it You sound like a REAL man there Joker, I bet the ladies love you, lol. Probably gets them just as turned on as a "motorboat". :whistling: No doubt

Where did I ever say that Joe? I never said I was compelled to reply, you guys really need to stop making sh!t up and then flaming me for what you created from nothing. My reply is my choice, nobody forced me to reply and there was no out of control element to my comment in the slightest. I do exactly what I want to do and nobody makes me do anything. My point is always I can't reply to what is not there. Some child like Joker must start the ball rolling first. I can play whatever game people want to play. But we love your hump emkay

Yeah, I'm kind of a twisted individual when it comes to my sexual endeavors. But at least I can still get it up. Jealous, TJ? Whatever tripps your trigger Joker, if you like poo in a sexual way, then so be it. Maybe it is the fact I only connect sex with love but I have never had an issue with showing my love for the one I care about, I don't have to 'gin up' arousal the way you do my friend. I never said I liked poop, TJ. Paraphilia is a blanket term for anything that isn't "normal sex". And perhaps I love my girl, but I love her even more when I'm choking her out and vomiting on her ass? I'm not quite that twisted, though. And thank god, man. I love me some sex, but that would just be strange. And I show her my love just fine. She gets to see it right before I slap her in the face with it You sound like a REAL man there Joker, I bet the ladies love you, lol.

Sig worthy, lol

You spoiled it emkay, I know you are well read, but I also know joker would have no idea who that was, lol. Yes, the puppet master, meaning people like joker try to say they are not responsible for their own actions, they make excuses and pretend like their behavior is all my fault so does that make me Mangiaifuoco? Is Joker and everyone else just my puppets doing what I force them to do? Joker has no ability to behave on his own? If some people can live witht heir hump, I can live with large lips I sometimes step on, lol.

Neither is a "wrong" kid. The flame was just an action, not right or wrong in that sense. I responded with another action to reply. So who's fault was it you started the flames? Did I force you to behave this way kid? Am I Mangiafuoco and you one of my puppets ( I am sure you will have to look that one up to understand it, lol)? I am not the guy trying to blame my actions on someone else kid. Take responsibility for yourself, don't try to blame me for your mistakes.

Democrats????????