timesjoke

Happy late birthday Wez, I hopw you got laid or something to celebrate

Cop Do you know why I stopped you sir? = I am trying to make up my mind if I will screw with you for an extra 30 minutes on the side of the road or write your ticket and let you go quickly, please help me make this decision.........

But before they got off welfare.....they were 'on' welfare, lol. To understand my point you have to know that hugo does not allow any consideration for welfare in any way, he first posted that link believing this guy was a 'no welfare' guy who opposed any kind of "socialist" program but in fact this guy does support welfare programs, is a product of welfare, and is a success story for welfare. He wants welfare reform, severe reform sure, and I fully support those reforms to be honest. And I also agree that this guy is a good conservative and someone I would vote for. But.....he still wants there to be welfare programs, and based on that fact, he is a "socialist" based on hugo's definition of a socialist previously given to include any policy that gives away "free money". I also believe we need "some" forms of welfare, but limited and not in the Federal Government's hands.

Well that is what he changed it to anyway, lol. The problem is not what he says, but how to impliment it. How do we distinguish between the bum who is not trying to help himself and the guy who lost his job because Government regulation drove his job to another Country? I have supported drug testing for anyone on welfare and other Government assistence for over 20 years, that is not really a new idea. I guess it is easy to say you do not want to give money to bums but hard to actually turn that into a Government policy, the government machine will always screw it all up, that is why I don't want the Federal Government involved in it at all. But, again look at this guy hugo calles a great conservative, this guy is not saying eliminate welfare, he just wants to eliminate welfare for the "wrong" kind of person, welfare is great as long as the people "he" approves of get that welfare...........including himself when he was a child.

Man: I love you = I want sex and will try to forget you exist after I get it. Woman: I love you = I think I can control you.

Well he backed off it a little bit. And he benefitted from welfare programs too so his message is a tad confusing to be honest. If he turned out okay and a great member of society after getting help, why is he saying that same help sould be witheld from other people? I don't really have an issue with helping people, I just don't want the Federal Government running it. Their rules and buracracy ensures that massive amounts of money will be wasted, people who deserve help will not get it, while people who do not deserve help will get it. Comminities should be running welfare, not Federal Governments. Comminities know if your just a bumb or a good person just in a bad situation.

You can trust me, I'm on the pill.= You have a great job and I want half your income for 18 years.

Bingo!!! I saw snaf's point of $10 milk to be very important. Items like milk and bread are considered foundation foods and if even those basic foods are so incredibly high priced, we can imagine how much everything else costs. I guess hugo wants the oil companies to get the oil for free, the politicians to get millions of under the table bribes for giving it away for free, and a few of the most wealthy to get tax breaks while everyone else in the State of Alaska gets nothing. While some may call it welfare in their desperate attempt to justify why they voted for Obama instead of McCain/Palin, myself I prefer to eliminate the greed, eliminate the temptation for redirecting so much wealth into just a few political hands to be used in corrupt ways for personal gain instead of helping all of the residents of Alaska. A politician is supposed to be representing everyone, not just those who donate the most money into their election funds, and that is exactly what would happen if you let the politicians have unfettered control over how to spend the oil revinue funds. Consider the "stimulus" bill last year, almost $800 billion of pure garbage spending most of it earmarked as "rewards" to contributers and States that voted for Obama. If we can't keep our elected officials from doing stuff like this with money we do not even have, what makes anyone think we can make politicians behave with the kind of funds comming from the sale of the oil? No, it is better in my mind to eliminate the chance of abuse and simply ensure that money is not used for political gain for a just a couple corrupt politicians.

And the liberals love this guy

You wanted it to work as a way of saying what you wanted to say but not fulfill the other side of the bargan to yourself be involved in helping me to say things in a way that would still impart the information but in a way that did not upset you. I sent you pm's because that was part of the agreement. If all you desire is to say what you want without me ever responding then just ban me again. If instead you want to work together to find some peace that will require "work" from "both" of us. Are you willing to work?

Or how the UAW was given part ownership of the "NEW GM" because of their support for Obama while actual lein holders were told to piss off in direct contradiction of contract laws in America. All this "new" talk of jobs is to try and calm the public after the devestating blow the liberals were handed in Mass. More redirecting, no real "change".

The thing hugo fails to understand is that we are not talking about Texas where everything is dirt cheap even the labor to build things where illegals from Mexico are conviently overlooked while they are needed to build a Government building but then are bad any other time. As snaf points out, milk costs $10, now if we compare that cost to what the rest of us pay for milk, we see a lot more than a 30% increase on just one item. Recent reports show that many states have run out of money in their unemployment accounts, most are experiencing massive shortfalls in tax collection while at the same time they were already deficit spending just like our Federal Government. 30%? Maybe Alaska was the only State who saw what was comming and planned for it? Hugo lives in a State where money he has not earned is used to offset his personal tax burdon, that is also welfare, but you notice he will never address that. Sure, he says he put me on ignore, he says that is because I am not smart but consider this........why is it someone who is so stupid can ask questions too difficult for him to respond to? If I am stupid and my questions are too hard for him to answer, then he must be completely brain dead and only parrotting what he sees from other people instead of actually being able to discuss these things on his own.

Well you can put me on ignore, but you can't change the fact that you supported welfare too, just to different people. The writer you called a great conservative said he wanted mnore of the funds to go to people who pay higher taxes, Hugo...... You either "EARNED" the money or you did not. If someone is getting money they did not "EARN" then it is welfare no matter how you try to play semantics with it. So you are not against welfare, you just want the welfare to go to "YOUR" kind of people who "DESERVE" to get money they did not actually "EARN". Funny stuff, lol. Now we see how independents like hugo justified voting for Obama.

I don't think so, but even if he did, are the voters of his district really that stupid?

I agree, conservatives have been saying exactly those same things the entire time but the liberals claim "the other side" has no ideas. Under Competition, every conservative I know has been saying to drop the restriction of companies selling insurance accross State lines and we will see an almost instant 10% decrease in premiums overnight. Obama directly promised no tort reform even to an audience of doctors who supported him. All doctors know that their single biggest overhead is malpractice insurance even for a doctor who has never had a single claim. The prospect of millions of dollar awards for even the smallest injuries forces out of this world premiums for doctors. I say if the liberals want to get into the insurance business, they should take over malpractice insurance. I bet all those big awards dissapear then.

Today it is as if all the main big three networks are downplaying or even ignoring the story. Stick your head in the sand and pretend like nothing happend.

Like follow the law of the land? Palin was following the law of the land to enforce the rights of her people who own the oil hugo. We have already established you also get welfare from the unearned funds that are paid on your behalf into Government because of oil revenue. The forms welfare take may look different but the question is, did you "EARN" the money that was paid on your behalf? No. So if you did not "EARN" it, then that money was a form of welfare all residents of Texas benefit from. Here in Florida we do not have a state income tax, this is made possible because my state has higher taxes on the vacation/resort industry. Every Floridian benefits from a large portion of our taxes being paid by other people. Is that a form of welfare? Sure, from a certain perspective, our vacation industry is a kind or state resource that we all benefit from. I don't see a problem with that and maybe that makes me look a tad socialist to some very narrow minded people but to me I prefer sharing things equally to eliminate corruption. If we gave individual politicians discretinary control over that kind of money on a election to election basis, it would be too much of a temptation for the average person. Consider that almost all politicians are also lawyers, people trained in the art of telling lies.

Nancy announced today that she does not have the votes to pass the house bill with a very sad look on her face. I just love it.

"the enemey of my enemey is my friend" You never let a chance to take a shot at me pass for any reason. Even if you did not understand my point earlier, you should now after I detailed it out more, but your still acting like you do not so that proves your only interested in "gotcha" comments with me. No I do not, as said above, now that there is no excuse for you to missunderstand, continuing to push this false comment is intentional and proves your not being sincere. As I said, it is fantacy, dreaming, not serious or something I would ever expect or really want. I explained it with the lottery example, if you are intentionally blocking yourself from understanding that then I cannot help you. But, the founding fathers were creating a system of people who took care of themselves, things like welfare have drastically changed the dynamic they were creating, are you honestly trying to say you can't see how the voying system has been corrupted by welfare? Hide what you can't answer to, I expected that. I was not trying to screw with you, just point out that you have always had a personal thing with me. I never said you spent 70 posts setting up anything. where did you get that? When an opportunity presents itself to take a shot at me, you will, that was my only point. Trying to insert extra stuff into what I say is not reasonable. Now the "times hush". I will now gladly shut up upon request, part of your responsibility with that agreement is to now tell me in pm's how I upset you to this point and help me understand how better to reply to your comments to not make you mad. But, attacking me and putting me down at the same time your using the "times hush" is not really the spirit of the agreement I am offering. I was trying to make it so me and another person could discuss how to get along, not how you can shut me up and continue bashing me forever without me commenting. But even though your not using it in good faith, I will still respect my word and no longer comment in this thread, you have the thread sir.

I am reviving my interest in a tattoo again as well, I am looking through more images trying to see if another design catches my eye. I am also looking for inspiration for a tattoo that will include the names of my children and clocks/time passing.

According to UNITED STATES v. EICHMAN, 496 U.S. 310 As long as your expressing yourself, your protected under the first amendment for free speach to do whatever you want with a flag. You can burn it, stomp on it, shove it up a cows azz if you want, just say it is for free speach and you can do whatever you want with the flag.

To me the funniest thing in the world is how everyone in the liberal world is still calling it "Ted Kennedy's Senate seat". Like they owned it or something. On of the best points Braown made in a debate was that this seat does not belong to Ted Kennedy, or the Democrats, it instead belongs to the people and that is why so many of the people are upset, these elite politicians do not understand they are supposed to be working for these peopel they do not even see. As I predicted, Obama has said he wants to wait on Bro9wn to be seated before trying to move forward on his healthcare agenda, he knows he was a very big part for why they lost that seat now, the question is, can the Democrats learn from this and change enough to slavage their reputation with voters before the mid term elections? I think it is certainly possible, especially if they turn away from their insane healthcare drive and instead work to create a new bipartisan bill. If Obama can bring the two parties together to work on things as he promised he would do during the election, then he will regain the trust of Americans. But if Obama cannot control the more radical elements of his party like Pelosi and Reed, then there will be no regaining of trust, too much damage has been done.

And there is the majority of Americans, somewhere in the middle, not extreme one way or the other. Most Americans do not want America turned into a radical socialist State, and they also do not want to make people starve who need help.

Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in a race that is being shown as the biggest upset for Democrats for over 20 years. But why? I have been saying all along it was the independents who handed Obama the Presidency when they believed his campaign promises of middle of the road politics where he said he would have full transparency and would work openly with both sides of the asile............but, the Obama who took office has nothing in common with the Obama who ran for that office and made all those wonderful promises of "hope" and "change" in Washington. Obama ran with his 60 vote super majority and said screw the promises and decided to be purely partisan, purely socialist, purely insulting to anyone who dared to question what he was doing........... And it has had a cost, now their 60 vote supermajority that they were banking on has bounced a check and everything has changed........... I wonder who the Liberals will blame? Already they are trying to blame Coakley, trying to say she ran a lack luster campaign but even after 20 million dollars of emergency ads and appearances from Obama nothing changed, in fact the numbers from the polls got worse after Obama showed up. So why did the people reject the "easy win" Democrat? In my opinion,it had little to do with her and everything to do with rejecting Obama and his socialist agenda that even the mostly Liberal leaning Massachusetts voters had to revolt against it.....and that is saying a lot. If the Democrats do not learn from this that they have been going down the wrong road and severely pull back on their radical socialist agenda, they will see more of the same very soon. My newest prediction: Several moderate Democrats will regain their guts and join with the Republicans to reject many of these very bad possitions that Pelosi and Reed had earlier bullied them into accepting. This loss will wake them up that even previously 'assumed' Democratic seats are now in play because the people are getting pissed off. Look for the remaining hard core socialist Democrats to talk a lot of sh!t and turn very ugly on their way down as well. Obama will stop talking trash, he is not as stupid as Reed and Pelosi where he knows things have now changed faster than expected. Obama knew all along that there would be a knee jerk reaction against his party in the mid term elections, that is why he was trying to get his most radical stuff passed before that election showed up.......... Now he will have to ease up, let other people like Pelosi talk trash while he sits back with his mouth shut. But, all the sh!t talking he has already done will have a price, just how big is yet to be determined.

Play stupid if you insist, lol. Yep, playing stupid, answering you is also stupid, so why not....... No, I would be the king of the world, why have a bunch of people between me and the actions when the people with that kind of power would just be corrupted anyway, lol. No dumbass........ The point was that in a "perfect" world, those who pay for things get to make the decisions, while those who are leaching have the option of getting off their azz and being one of the deciders or to stay leaching and not get a 'vote'. Consider it like your home, if your paying the bills, you make the rules of the house, if you let an out of work buddy move in with you, will you let him set or change the rules of your home while your paying for him to live for free on your food, electricity, etc.....? I don't think so. If you say otherwise we all know your telling a lie. Anyway, as I said, it was just one of those comments that are just tossed out there for screwing around, kind of like you saying I was banned on a dozen forums but when I asked you to back that comment up, you ran away from it. We all have our own ways of talking sh!t, one way I like to play around is to say I want things that can never be, I thought my example of the lottery was enough for even you to understand that point but I guess not.