View Single Post
  #4  
Old December 8th 04, 02:16 AM
Peter A. Stavrakoglou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Geoff" > wrote in message
icas.hpqcorp.net...
>
>
> Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 06:10:41 -0500
>> From: Peter A. Stavrakoglou >
>> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler
>> Subject: Cost of Chrysler financing
>>
>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>You can always return your tax cut.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll tell you what I have a better idea. How about actually cutting
>> >> > spending so
>> >> > that the tax cut is paid for?

>
> Doublespeak. One does not "pay for" a reduction in income. One *might*
> "reduce spending", or choose to engage in deficit spending. You see,
> "paying for" implies that the government is "giving" us something. It is
> not.
>
> It is being forced, by law, to not *take* as much of what is rightfully
> OURS *from* us. Not that this is a distinction that you'll be able to
> understand, Ted.
>
>
>> >> >
>> >> > You conservatives love to talk the talk about how much money your
>> >> > saving us with these tax cuts. Too bad you wuss out when it comes
>> >> > to
>> >> > actually cutting spending.

>
> No, conservatives love to talk about the amount of their *own money*
> they get to keep, as compared to what would otherwise be if you
> socialists were in power. I love my tax cut; I went down an entire
> bracket. I want ANOTHER tax cut, an even larger one. I'd like to see
> my federal income tax somewhere around 5-10%, and my FICA eliminated.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, unfortunately, liberals won't vote for you if you cut back on
>> >> their
>> >> "entitlements."
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hell-lo, is there empty air in that head or what? you WON the election
>> > ya
>> > idiots! Are we going to hear another 4 years of whining that "oh we
>> > have
>> > both houses of congress and we got to stuff the Supreme court with our
>> > lackeys but po lil us we just can't do anything because of those nasty
>> > liberals"

>
>
> Republican != conservative, although conservative Republicans are the
> majority
>
> Democrat != socialist, although socialist Democrats are the majority
>
> Liberal = socialist, every single time.
>
> Another fine-line distinction that will doubtless go over your head,
> Ted.
>
>
>> >
>> > If so, I guess on the bright side since your friends are CHOOSING to be
>> > helpless then you will be too busy whining that you won't have much
>> > chance
>> > to **** up the country.
>> >
>> > You conservatives have been claiming since the Vietnam War that you
>> > could
>> > do
>> > a better job of running the country than us liberals.

>
> Trained monkeys could do a better job than you socialists did. Oh, wait
> a minute, Bill Clinton WAS a trained monkey!
>
>
> Well, now is your
>> > chance to
>> > prove it. Iffin 4 years from now we still have no balanced budget

>
>
> Who says that a "balanced budget" is a goal of today's conservatives? A
> "balanced budget" is a canard, a red herring, a vaporware goal. Nobody
> who's ever had a mortgage has had a "balanced budget". "Deficit
> spending" is a commonly-accepted means to an end, and it is workable and
> manageable. Don't give me this "balanced budget" hooey. I couldn't
> honestly care *less* whether or not the budget is "balanced."
>
>
> - and
>> > it
>> > was your party that was campaigning for the balanced budget amendment
>> > a few years ago, mind -

>
> If so, it was misguided, and probably an attempt to reign you
> socialists in.
>
> Fortunately, we were able to do so without amending the Constitution
> that time. Regardless, if amending the Constitution is what it takes
> the next time, we'll likely pull it off.
>
>
> then it will be obvious even to a blind monkey you
>> > have been full of **** all along, and your going to initiate the end of
>> > the
>> > consrvative swing in the US, and by 2010 we are going to have gay
>> > marriage,
>> > an end of government funding of religious schools (aka vouchers) and
>> > all the other things that make you wake up scared in the night.

>
> The conservative swing in the US is just getting under way, Ted. We're
> only 10 years in, and if the pattern repeats, there's 30 more to go.
> By the time we're done, there won't BE any liberals as currently
> defined. Heh! I can't wait until all the socialist hippies from the 60s
> are DEAD! :-)
>
>> >
>> > It's your choice, are you going to be a party of whiners or a party of
>> > doers?
>> >
>> > Ted

>>
>> I think your underwear is on too tight.
>>
>>
>>

> I think he's right. Funny, I didn't think you socialists even wore
> underwear.
>
> --Geoff


Never heard of the government subsidized underwear program?


Ads