So for the next presidential election will the republican candidate try to distant themselves from Bush and try to make the "people" believe he will be different. If so, are people stupid enough to believe them? I guess I can see the candidate saying "I am not like Bush", even though they supported everything he did until he got unpopular.

5/29/2006 2:35:15 AM

I thought we prohibited new users from starting threads

5/29/2006 2:47:45 AM

I'm sorry, I guess I should just talk about the same stuff you "veterans" talk about........ I'm 100% sure that 9/11 was planned by the government. I have the evidence. Clearly the governemt planted bombs in the world trade center that went off as soon as the airplanes hit........ I guess if you talk about real issues here you just get insulted and only people that spend all day on tww are allowed to start threads. Sorry

5/29/2006 2:54:21 AM

haha

5/29/2006 4:08:41 AM

^^that's just salisburyboy and a couple of jackasses who are unable to unclench their lips from his balls

and your thread is still retarded and not really worth discussing.

5/29/2006 5:25:30 AM

i guess that you'll never learn if nobody explains it to you...


Yes, the GOP candidate will likely distance himself from the President. Yes, people are stupid enough to believe all kinds of stuff. However, McCain and Giuliani (the 2 front runners as of right now) are actually very different from the President.

In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that the GOP nominee will be very different from President Bush.

5/29/2006 7:17:22 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: (the 2 front runners as of right now)"

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahaha

ha

 

5/29/2006 9:36:02 AM

^^Different in what way? You gotta elaborate because I see all Republicans as being very similar to Bush in at least one way: EXTRA MONEY FOR THE RICHEST AND THE CORPORATIONS!!! WOO HOO!

5/29/2006 9:49:26 AM

^
corporations, sure. but richest? that's just libelous -- you've clearly got it confused w/ teh L3ft and their fatcats...

(although w/ typically 75%+ of Congressional L3fties voting for corporate bailouts and other silliness like the airline bill, I'm not sure the corporations argument is all that valid either...) 

5/29/2006 9:54:35 AM

Quote :

"but richest? that's just libelous -- you've clearly got it confused w/ teh L3ft and their fatcats..."

Okay, TGD, I think you may be about to blow my mind here...

Do Republicans not support tax relief for the highest income earners?

Quote :

"(although w/ typically 75%+ of Congressional L3fties voting for corporate bailouts and other silliness like the airline bill, I'm not sure the corporations argument is all that valid either...)"

I'll buy it for now, but I'm gonna look it up because of this "typically" you tossed in there.

Regardless, the argument is most definitely valid because we're discussing similarities between Bush and the right--the left is another matter.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 10:08 AM. Reason : I can't hide my edits like you. ]

5/29/2006 9:57:54 AM

Quote :

"Do Republicans not support tax relief for the highest income earners?"

Why do you think high-earners would benefit from a tax cut? It's because they're the ones who pay most of the taxes. The only way you could help the poor with the income tax system is to raise their freebie money by increasing the earned income credit. Give them other people's money for being non-productive.

Now this doesn't excuse the GOP's horrendous combination of tax-cuts and spending increases.

5/29/2006 10:09:08 AM

Quote :

"Do Republicans not support tax relief for the highest income earners?"

An odd form of tax relief. Sure, the marginal tax rate is lower nowadays, but the percentage share of federal income taxes paid has been steadily rising since 2001:

% of federal income tax paid by each group
Year___Top 1%___Top 10%__Bottom 50%
2001___33.89%___64.89%_____3.97%
2002___33.71%___65.73%_____3.50%
2003___34.27%___65.84%_____3.46%
Source: Internal Revenue Service

So, as far as tax policy goes, Republicans favor tax relief for all tax brackets, which does include the highest income earners, but is also includes the poorest. The results of their tax policies show this out.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html



[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 11:35 AM. Reason : img]

5/29/2006 11:31:12 AM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Okay, TGD, I think you may be about to blow my mind here... Do Republicans not support tax relief for the highest income earners?"

Yes, Republicans support tax relief.

Democrats, by contrast, prefer specialized tax breaks (see: the yacht luxury tax exemption enacted by Sen Teddy "Uncle Keg" Kennedy) and all sorts of new government welfare-state programs so their company's don't have to provide decent benefits (see: George Soros, Warren Buffett).

As flagrantly unconstitutional as it was, why do you think W signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill? Teh L3ft has become the party of the fatcats, relying on the largesse of the uber-rich. Republicans largely weren't affected by it, b/c most of their contributions are small-dollar by comparison.

---

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: I'll buy it for now, but I'm gonna look it up because of this "typically" you tossed in there."

lol I would expect nothing less But from the Chrysler bailout in the 1970s (90%+) to the airline bailout in the 2000s (77%+), you'll find overwhelming majorities of teh L3ft clamoring for it.

---

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Regardless, the argument is most definitely valid because we're discussing similarities between Bush and the right--the left is another matter."

Touché, you got me  

5/29/2006 11:33:15 AM

TGD, I don't really think that Giuliani will get the GOP nod, but from the poll I saw yesterday, he and McCain are in first and second place, respectively.

5/29/2006 11:54:31 AM

perhaps im wrong but those tax charts look pretty dumb to me.

top 1%, 16.1% income, 33.7% tax
next 4%, subtract the top 1% from 5 = 14.9% income & 20.1% tax
next 5%, sub 5 from 10 = 11.2% income & 11.9% tax
next 15%, sub 10 from 25 = 22.6% income & 18.2% tax
next 25% = 21.4% income & 12.6% tax

so they only ppl pulling significantly above their income % are the top 5% (top 10 just barely). i dont see it as all that bad considering.

logically, the poor cant afford to pay all that much in taxes or they'll be even more screwed than they are at min wage or similar. they also make abysmal ammounts compared to the top %'s so it isnt surprising that they dont pull a large percentage. if we want to argue 0 sum, that has to be made up somewhere so the rich are taking one for the team. we could get into the type of ppl in that category, but id rather not.


so is there something wrong with my math, cuz it is early and im prone to mistakes.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

5/29/2006 12:47:13 PM

Your analysis of the graph looks reasonable. My reasoning here is not to argue that the rich are over nor under taxed. My point was merely to show what has changed in the recent history of Republican dominance, namely that the rich are paying more than ever, both literally and relatively.

5/29/2006 12:58:58 PM

Quote :

"cyrion: if we want to argue 0 sum, that has to be made up somewhere so the rich are taking one for the team. we could get into the type of ppl in that category, but id rather not."

I always thought it was the middle class that's taking one for the team.

?

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Sure, the marginal tax rate is lower nowadays, but the percentage share of federal income taxes paid has been steadily rising since 2001"

Their percentage share has been growing because their income has been growing more than the rest, right?

I'm not good at this economics stuff. My parents are in the top five percent, and my understanding is that they pay less taxes now than ever before...?

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 1:38 PM. Reason : Lots of question marks! Honest people, please help! (Not you, LoneSnark )]

5/29/2006 1:30:29 PM

^
that's just b/c you're still a very dogmatic L3ftie

---

Quote :

"theDuke866: TGD, I don't really think that Giuliani will get the GOP nod, but from the poll I saw yesterday, he and McCain are in first and second place, respectively."

oh I agree, but that's just b/c campaigning hasn't really started yet

---

Quote :

"cyrion: logically, the poor cant afford to pay all that much in taxes or they'll be even more screwed than they are at min wage or similar."

I don't think anyone ever said the poor should "pay all that much" -- but they definitely should pay their share. If you're uber-rich and the 534 people in your tax bracket bring in 16% of all income, you should be paying 16% of all taxes; and if you're flat broke along with the other 50% of tax filers and your bracket brings in 14% of all income, your bracket should be paying 14% of all taxes. 

5/29/2006 1:36:29 PM

^^

Quote :

"I always thought it was the middle class that's taking one for the team. ?"

Thats what politicians love to say because the majority of voters are in the middle class, and tax cuts for the middle class is always a popular slogan.

Doesn't make it true, though.

And yes, the rich are paying more because they are making more money. Cuts in corporate taxes spurring an economic boom have allowed the richest 5% to make a boatload of money, a good portion of which ends up in the treasury.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 1:39 PM. Reason : 2]

5/29/2006 1:37:12 PM

well im just making judgements on that chart bridget. i dont follow tax codes enough to know the historical percentages (except generally large swings).

Quote :

"I don't think anyone ever said the poor should "pay all that much" -- but they definitely should pay their share. If you're uber-rich and the 534 people in your tax bracket bring in 16% of all income, you should be paying 16% of all taxes; and if you're flat broke along with the other 50% of tax filers and your bracket brings in 14% of all income, your bracket should be paying 14% of all taxes. "

what i meant was that if they were to "pay their share" then they would be paying "all that much" because their extremely low income doesnt afford to paying even a "normal" tax rate. this obviously/probably doesnt apply to the entire bottom 50%, but id imagine a good portion of them.

5/29/2006 3:02:19 PM

i'm pretty sure the american people aren't dumb enough to vote for a republican president for atleast another 4 years after the 2008 elections

5/29/2006 3:24:11 PM

^^ Whatever you believe their fair share is, they are paying less share today than they were in 2001. So, if their share was reasonable under clinton then it is decidedly more reasonable today.

5/29/2006 3:29:51 PM

Bush's tax policy is one of the worse things to attack him on. Most people are paying lower taxes, and that's all they see and care about.

5/29/2006 3:34:05 PM

i thought only the richer people were seeing lower taxes?

5/29/2006 3:38:51 PM

IIRC everyone is seeing lower taxes. The complaints are usually that the tax burden has shifted away slightly from the richer people to the middle class.

5/29/2006 3:44:28 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: ^^ Whatever you believe their fair share is, they are paying less share today than they were in 2001. So, if their share was reasonable under clinton then it is decidedly more reasonable today."

Fuck. You're full of shit, and you know it, and it makes me sick. You say shit, knowing full well that you're being deceptive, and to what end? You're 23; you're not even in the Club yet.

You keep talking about "their share" and twisting it to mean something it doesn't.

The lowest income earners get paid (payed?) shit. Their income stays at the shitty level. Meanwhile, the highest income earners are getting paid more and more every day. So you're fucking right the share paid by the lowest earners gets smaller and smaller...but that's only because their incomes aren't increasing in proportion to the rest.

But you already knew all that.

"Hey, let's consistently pay people shit, and then try to make them feel less valuable to society when their share of the taxes declines compared to the rest of us."

GREAT IDEA

5/29/2006 3:50:35 PM

Quote :

"If so, are people stupid enough to believe them? "

are you fucking kidding me? hells yeah people will believe that shit. they will eat that shit up just like they did the "Kerry is a Commie" argument.

i bet 90% of these neanderthals believe Kerry is a card carrying communist. its a Rove success story as much as it is a Democratic Party PR failure.

5/29/2006 4:10:57 PM

I do not support ssjamind's elitism.

5/29/2006 4:25:42 PM

Quote :

"all sorts of new government welfare-state programs so their company's don't have to provide decent benefits (see: George Soros, Warren Buffett). "

so i guess conservatives dont like wal-mart pushing for the maintenance of these programs so they dont have to pay up? i mean, most conservatives on here seem to think that they dont need to provide anything, and neither does the gov., not realizing that sadly some people can do no better than those jobs...

^^where did that whole argument come from anyway? the fact that he was against the vietnam war? because he looked funny? because he was an easy target? why didnt they just say "he killed women and children in vietnam" or something like that, doubt his inept party would have done anything anyway.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

5/29/2006 4:28:23 PM

Wow, BridgetSPK, why the hostility? I said "IF" you believed things were fair under clinton then you must continue to believe they are fair. If, as it seems, you feel the poor were fucked under Clinton then obviously you still believe they are Fucked.

Calm the fuck down, ranting and raving doesn't breed intelligent discussion. The growth in inequality has nothing to do with the republican tax policy and everything to do with relative shortages in the labor market. You can tax the educated more but it won't make the poor get paid higher wages (if anything it will only further depress their wages).

My mistake here was to think we were talking about tax policy and not your vision of economic fairness.

5/29/2006 4:30:23 PM

my comments were only to note that the chart was deceptive in its construction to make it look like the poor have it easy. i dont think that the poor are overly taxed as it is, but shifting policy to get rid of taxes altogether or make it more "fair" for the rich seem pointless to me.

5/29/2006 4:49:05 PM

LoneSnark, I've been extremely hostile towards you for some time now. It started to get really bad when you suggested that the market would naturally solve our enviornmental problems.

From your posts, I glean that you have no values. You're just obsessed with economics and the beauty of the market. Your brilliant yet autistic view of the world frightens me. Perhaps I don't read enough of your posts or something...?

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 4:52 PM. Reason : sss]

5/29/2006 4:49:18 PM

Quote :

"Meanwhile, the highest income earners are getting paid more and more every day."

not exactly.

most people don't get rich from high income. there are very, very few jobs that pay enough to really get rich. I only make about $40k/year right now, and I'm investing at a pace that should make me a multimillionaire by the time I retire. I read an article in a finance magazine a couple of weeks ago about an ENLISTED man in the Navy and his wife (along with their two kids) and their investment plan. They've amassed a huge nest egg already, and are on pace to retire relatively young.

the rich get rich, for the most part, by doing smart things to make their money multiply. the way to get rich is not so much to draw a huge income from salary--it's to be smart with your money and invest it so that it makes you more and more money. the problem is that few people know how to do this, and fewer still have the self discipline to do it.

_________________________________________________________

Partially in light of that, I don't really have that much sympathy for the poor. Well, that's not exactly true--I do, but I don't agree with the "take from the rich and give to the poor" mentality that our society has. It's not the fault of the rich that people are poor. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to me to take money from people who know what to do with it and give it to people who will piss it away.

The solution, in my mind, is to teach people much, much more about finance than we currently do (as of right now, we don't really teach anybody anything appreciable on the subject). THAT'S how we're doing people a huge disservice. I won't say it's unfair, because we, as a society, aren't obligated to teach people how to handle their money, although it's in our best interest. Nobody really taught me anything meaningful about personal finance other than "don't waste your money and don't run up too much debt" until I decided that I wanted to be dirty, rotten, filthy, stinking rich one day and started looking into how to do it.

After we teach people how to handle their finances, if someone wants to be poor, then oh well. Not our problem anymore.


I'm not saying that we should go all the way to the logical extreme of this philosophy, but I'd like to see us go in that direction a few steps. I'd rather teach a man to fish, as the saying goes, and I hate getting screwed by the anchor of the lowest common denominators of society dragging behind me (in lots of ways, ranging from speed limits to taxes) and not even trying to run when I'm trying to climb to the top.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 6:16 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

5/29/2006 6:12:36 PM

Quote :

" It's not the fault of the rich that people are poor."

it isnt entirely the poor's fault nor are the rich entirely blameless id say.

5/29/2006 6:17:07 PM

Which is part of the reason I say that:

Quote :

"I'm not saying that we should go all the way to the logical extreme of this philosophy"

The big thing is that nobody teaches the poor how to not be poor, and therefore most of them don't realize that there is an "out"...that, and getting rich takes discipline that a lot of people won't exercise, and they therefore are poor.

5/29/2006 6:35:10 PM

I love how everyone talks about "the poor" and "the rich"... like once you get stuck in one bracket, you're not going anywhere. This isn't Europe folks...

---

Quote :

"Waluigi: so i guess conservatives dont like wal-mart pushing for the maintenance of these programs so they dont have to pay up?"

Ummm...basically. Hence why more Republicans than Democrats oppose things like the Medicaid drug benefit legislation, extra funding, etc. Nice try though.

---

Quote :

"Waluigi: not realizing that sadly some people can do no better than those jobs..."

typical liberal...  

5/29/2006 6:59:47 PM

Quote :

" not realizing that sadly some people can do no better than those jobs"

^seriously, his position is far worse.

I at least recognize that the vast majority of people CAN do better, even if I know that reality is that they probably won't.

Selling people short like that is what's REALLY cruel and elitist.


I want to give everybody the vehicles to better themselves, and then not pay nearly as much for the people who don't do it (and that goes way beyond the old whipping boy of welfare. that's not really even what I'm talking about, although I guess it's a very small part)

5/29/2006 7:14:11 PM

^Actually it sounds exactly like what you're talking about.

Quote :

"and I hate getting screwed by the anchor of the lowest common denominators of society dragging behind me (in lots of ways, ranging from speed limits to taxes) and not even trying to run when I'm trying to climb to the top."

Some of the most warped nonsense I have ever read.

And it scares the fuck out of me because I know people agree with you. When you pay taxes, all you can think about are these armies of poor, greedy, lazy, dumb fucks happily getting fat on your dollar. These armies don't exist. It's all a figment of your desperate, pathetic imagination.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 7:19 PM. Reason : sss]

5/29/2006 7:18:43 PM

No, they totally do. They're not evil, horrible people or anything like you envision me thinking, but they are there.


I specifically described welfare as a whipping boy because it's not really the problem, but people love to hate on it. I mean, it is, but it's not the big problem. There isn't all that much fat to trim there in my opinion--a good number of people on the welfare rolls are people I don't mind helping. So no, it is not really what I'm talking about (for the most part...of course there is SOME fat to trim there, but it's lower priority).


The big problem is how we crush people for making money, and then hammer them some more when they do smart things with their money (i.e., capital gains tax, which i absolutely loathe). You're taxed when you earn money, taxed again on the same money when you spend it, taxed again for ownership of things that you bought with money you'd already been taxed on when you earned it AND spent it, taxed when you invest it and put it to work for you, and finally taxed again when you die and leave it to your family or friends.

We waste an ENORMOUS amount of money on Social Security (I bet many, or maybe even most people have more money withheld from their paycheck for SS than they do income taxes), which is all but worthless.

Furthermore, our method of extorting those ridiculous taxes is a horrible, wasteful, total clusterfuck that hardly anyone understands. Furthermore, the truly rich (i don't mean 100k/year or 250k/year, I mean the RICH RICH, although 250k/year is more than enough to get REALLY RICH if you do the right things with your money) shelter lots of their income and dodge a lot of those taxes anyway...it's the upper middle class who takes a fearsome beating.

Quote :

" poor, greedy, lazy, dumb fucks happily getting fat on your dollar."

Yes, they're poor and dumb. Most of them aren't lazy (they may not work as hard as I do, but most of them certainly aren't lazy). I don't care about them being greedy--if someone else gives me money, I'm down with that just like they are. I just don't feel entitled to it.


Almost anyone can get rich, or at least comfortable. People just don't know how to do it, or won't do what it takes to do it, or most often, both. While that is ultimately THEIR failure, not society's, we don't do a good job at all of teaching people how not to screw themselves financially.

Finally, they aren't getting fat on my dollar. They're doing something even worse--they're staying poor on my dollar, when I could be getting fat on my dollar.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 7:43 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

5/29/2006 7:41:55 PM

Quote :

"theDuke866: Finally, they aren't getting fat on my dollar. They're doing something even worse--they're staying poor on my dollar, when I could be getting fat on my dollar."

and theDuke just pwned that exchange...

gg

5/29/2006 7:45:46 PM

the stock market has averaged, what, 11%?

if you put $400/month into it for 35 years (start at age 25, retire at 60), you will have almost $2 million, even if you never make a dollar from house appreciation, never save a dollar from your paycheck other than that $400 investment, never inherit a penny, and never invest in any other asset (and never put forth any effort into beating the market, and just put all of your money into a total market index fund)

you don't have to be Warren fucking Buffett...I know just enough to be dangerous, and that alone is enough to be better than the vast majority of the population (and basically every poor person on the planet), and enough to make me filthy rich one day, because I invest much more than that figure every month (and learn more about what I'm doing all along)

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 7:54 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 7:56 PM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 7:58 PM. Reason : and it's not like I make tons of money]

5/29/2006 7:53:46 PM

Quote :

"I'm 100% sure that 9/11 was planned by the government"

i stopped here...then i realized he said "the government," which could refer to any government

5/29/2006 8:12:43 PM

Holy shit, I just went out to get some beer and was about to come back to apologize for devolving into angry, feelings-based "arguments." I haven't read all of what you wrote yet, theDuke, but it looks like you didn't devolve with me. Thanks for that.

I will need to collect my thoughts and respond. I will say now though that I got a little sick feeling when I read about you "climbing to the top." I also don't like this "better than" nonsense.

As far as your retirement plans go, I totally feel you. My Vanguard's doing alright. I hope to get another job so my parents can start contributing to it again.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 8:15 PM. Reason : sss]

5/29/2006 8:15:29 PM

Quote :

" I also don't like this "better than" nonsense."

"better than" in terms of financial education and knowledge...not "better than" like "higher form of human life".

Quote :

" I got a little sick feeling when I read about you "climbing to the top.""

I'm going to the top, and I want anyone who wants to come with me. I just hate, in this case, to waste money on taxes for other people to piss away (the other example was speed limits...I get annoyed that I, someone who knows what he's doing and has a high performance vehicle, get held to the same limit as a 16 year old girl in a Buick. not really the same thing...I just hate being held back by other people)

_____________________________________

It's not that I have no sympathy for poor people. My parents lived in a singlewide trailer until right about the time I was born. I have family on food stamps (including a cousin who has prostituted herself to fund her drug habit). My aunt and uncle were the only people on either side of my family to go to college until I went (well, I had another uncle go for like 1 semester). I don't come from a line of money, and I don't think that poor people are some scourge or lower form of person or citizen, per se.

I do think that our attitudes of entitlement and redistribution of wealth are fucked up and counterproductive, though. I disagree totally that this is how to effectively help the less fortunate members of our society (a term that I hesitate to use, because half the time, it isn't luck or fortune).

Financial education is essentially nonexistant in our country. Couple that with our culture of excess and instant gratification, and it's a recipe for disaster.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 8:32 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/29/2006 8:23:40 PM

Quote :

"and your thread is still retarded and not really worth discussing."

LET ME GET THIS FUCKING STRAIGHT

"JEWS TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE WHITE RACE" IS WORTH DISCUSSING
BUT POLITICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS "RETARDED AND NOT REALLY WORTH DISCUSSING"

WHAT THE FUCK SOAP BOX IS THIS

I CANNOT FUCKING BELIEVE THIS

5/29/2006 8:52:38 PM

Quote :

"I get annoyed that I, someone who knows what he's doing and has a high performance vehicle, get held to the same limit as a 16 year old girl in a Buick. not really the same thing...I just hate being held back by other people)"

you're convincing me on other fronts duke, but you'll never get me to agree on different speedlimits for different folks. driving is a lot like voting, you may know what you are doing but you can and will get fucked by the ignorant masses.

5/29/2006 9:39:42 PM

well, i wouldn't mind seeing a tiered licensing system, based on to what ability you have been trained and have demonstrated proficiency at, and what sort of vehicle you're driving (and maybe how many accidents you've caused).

it would allow capable drivers with the right vehicles to go faster in the right places, and give people an incentive to get more proficient at driving and be more careful.

regardless, i'm more concerned with how hard Uncle Sam screws us financially. At the end of the day, you can drive about how you want if you spend enough money on tickets, lawyers, insurance, and radar detectors, so it all boils down to the almighty dollar anyway.


[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 10:18 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/29/2006 10:14:26 PM

Quote :

"BUT POLITICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS "RETARDED AND NOT REALLY WORTH DISCUSSING""

well, you're oversimplifying...it isn't, as you say, that the next Presidential election is retarded and not worth discussing. it's the mind-boggling dumbness of the first post in this thread that gave me my initial reaction of "retarded and not worth discussing".

then I decided on "retarded, but I'll give a shot at explaining why."


and when's the last time you saw me discuss anything in a salisburyboythread? that isn't coincidence...I didn't just not notice that the threads were there.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 10:23 PM. Reason : maybe you should take the same approach with his threads instead of bttting them with trolling]

5/29/2006 10:22:33 PM

aside from a couple grammar/spelling mistakes, i see nothing that justifies this thread being called "retarded"

5/29/2006 10:28:52 PM

Quote :

"i guess that you'll never learn if nobody explains it to you... Yes, the GOP candidate will likely distance himself from the President. Yes, people are stupid enough to believe all kinds of stuff. However, McCain and Giuliani (the 2 front runners as of right now) are actually very different from the President. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that the GOP nominee will be very different from President Bush."

5/29/2006 10:33:21 PM