Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,928
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,928
I personally know of someone who graduated as valedictorian of his high school class, but whose ACT score was too low for him to get into anything but a technical school at a junior college. He took the ACT test again, and did no better.

Of course, I happen to know that he cheated his way through high school because I saw him doing it. For that matter, so did the salutatorian.

Oh...and the valedictorian is not really a stupid guy; he's actually done fairly well for himself. His problem in school, I think, is that he was too involved in sports and just didn't study. I don't know why he didn't do better on the ACT, unless he maybe is the type to "freeze up" during a test. IF that is true, it may be why he felt compelled to cheat on tests.

The salutatorian...well, he was a lil' snot, but his snottiness didn't do him much good in life when it came to his ability to hold a job.

Last edited by Lady_Clueless; 10/22/08 11:34 PM.

"Your actions are so loud that I can't hear a word you're saying!"

BW M 44 yrs to still-foggy but now-faithful WH. What/how I post=my biz. Report any perceived violations to the Mods.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Originally Posted by Lady_Clueless
In terms of procedura, Sarah Palin was correct in her definition the VP's role as President of the Senate.

No one disputes VP's title of President of the Senate, which is considered to be a ceremonial title (think Queen of England). The joke is that she said that a VP can "get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes". Not.

AGG

You don't think the VP might talk to senators and try to "get in there with the senators and make alot of good policy changes"?

Biden does.

BIDEN: “I hope one of my roles as vice p...respected on both sides of the aisle.”

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Originally Posted by Lady_Clueless
In terms of procedura, Sarah Palin was correct in her definition the VP's role as President of the Senate.

No one disputes VP's title of President of the Senate, which is considered to be a ceremonial title (think Queen of England). The joke is that she said that a VP can "get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes". Not.

AGG

You don't think the VP might talk to senators and try to "get in there with the senators and make alot of good policy changes"?

Biden does.

BIDEN: “I hope one of my roles as vice p...respected on both sides of the aisle.”

Nothing wrong with trying to implement the Pres's policies through Congress. But you won't Biden thinking he's "in charge of the Senate", like Palin does.

AGG


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Quote
Nothing wrong with trying to implement the Pres's policies through Congress.

Then why did you say there was?

Quote
The joke is that she said that a VP can "get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes". Not.

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by Lady_Clueless
That's assuming that any further plagiarisms on Biden's part are of works with no spelling errors! laugh

laugh .


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Quote
Nothing wrong with trying to implement the Pres's policies through Congress.

Then why did you say there was?

Quote
The joke is that she said that a VP can "get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes". Not.

Why not use my (and Palin's) complete quote?

Quote
Sarah is still out there blabbering today that a VP's role is to be "in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes".

AGG


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Quote
Why not use my (and Palin's) complete quote?

Why would you think I should use your COMPLETE quote from a post of yours I DID NOT QUOTE AT ALL???

Furthermore, why would you think I would need to address the part of your argument that Lady Clueless had already shown was faulty???




Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Why not use my complete quote?

Your editted version of my quote--->
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Biden is much smarter than Palin.


My COMPLETE quote---->
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Aw, come on...

Biden is much smarter than Palin. He knows the three letter word that describes what the activity of the Vice President if elected, and that’s “jobs,” Spelled “J” - “O” - “B” - “S”, jobs.

LOL



Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Originally Posted by rwinger
This is good read on Obama's father political leanings. I dont even imagine for one second the Dems would be brazen enough to do this
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952499910291

Quote
"What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all," said the senior Obama, a Harvard-educated economist. "This is the government's obligation." The "means" he had in mind were confiscatory taxes on a scale that redefines the term "progressive taxation."

"Theoretically," he wrote, "there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

Thanks for the article.

His father was right, once we embrace the idea that the tax system ought to be used as a means to "spread the wealth" there is nothing that can stop the government from taking everything we own.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
C'mon, I wouldn't care if Biden got a 4.0 in college...he went tot the University of Delaware! Around these parts...the school is but ten minutes from my home, it is considered nothing but a party school for underachievers that couldn't get into some of the top flight schools in Philadelphia. Heck, my son's mom graduated from there and I know she is far from the brightest bulb in the pack.

Quote
Biden graduated 506 out of 688 in his class

not an easy task at the University of Delaware!

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 558
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 558
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Oh goodie, we're off to get another thread locked... wink .

Originally Posted by Krazy71
Never underestimate the stupidity of "Joe Six Pack"...Dubya did get elected a second time, after all.

Yup. Scary stuff. And 'ole Sarah is still out there blabbering today that a VP's role is to be "in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes". Someone better tell her that all a VP can do is cast a tie-breaking vote, not to "get in there and make policy".

AGG

Keeping in mind that she was talking to a 3rd grader.....how would YOU explain this line...

VP can do is cast a tie-breaking vote.......

to a 7-8 year old. I have a 9 year old and she wouldn't have understood that explaination but understands the explaination that Sarah Palin used.

Lets hear how you would explain this to a 3rd grader, keeping in mind that YOU have time to think about your answer and aren't under constant media and democrat scrutiny







Me46
FWH42
Married 19 yrs
EA 4/07 - 4/08
(Confirmed by polygraph that it had not gone PA)
Dday1 4/13/08
Dday2 8/8/08
S26
S16
D10
Trying to Recover
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 558
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 558
***edit***

Last edited by Maverick_mb; 10/23/08 07:46 AM. Reason: TOS Violation - personal attack

Me46
FWH42
Married 19 yrs
EA 4/07 - 4/08
(Confirmed by polygraph that it had not gone PA)
Dday1 4/13/08
Dday2 8/8/08
S26
S16
D10
Trying to Recover
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Oh goodie, we're off to get another thread locked... wink .

rotflmao


W (me) 44
H 43
Married 19 years
DS 17
DS 15
DD 13
DD 8
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by JoJo422
***edit***

JoJo - if you'd like an example of this sort of "incomplete quoting" in order to try to smear Palin, check out the CNN interview of Sarah Palin by CNN "reporter" Drew Griffin.

Not only did he "parse" the New Republic article, he COMPLETELY changed the intent of the article to "make it appear" that "conservatives" thought Palin was "too dumb."

This sort of thing has been TYPICAL of the Left in their zealousness to get Obama elected BY ANY MEANS. The truth does not matter to them. According to Obama's philosophy, which the mainstream media heartily seems to endorse, "The end justifies the means." And their "end" is to get Obama elected by any means (lying, voter registrations fraud, voter fraud, refusal to examine anything negative about Obama, etc.).

He, Obama, is a Socialist (by definition) and believes, by his own admission, in "income redistribution" (the same as his father), Government takeover of the healthcare system, giving money from hardworking taxpayers to the approximately 40% of people who PAY NO TAXES, and the list goes on and on.


And while we are at it, have you seen the list of supporters for Bill Ayers?

Check out the names Ward Churchill and Rashid Khalidi (Columbia University). Anyone with an ounce of sense can begin to add 2+2 and SEE exactly what Obama's beliefs ARE, regardless of the "different" things he SAYS to whatever group he happens to be in front of.

And then there's Pennsylvania and Murtha. You know, that same Murtha who accused our military of all sorts of "dastardly" and "heinous" atrocities in Iraq (and still has not apologized for them). NOW Murtha shows the TRUE liberal left "opinion" of Pennsylvanians. They are racists, they are "rednecks." Yep, I guess so, after all, according to Obama they DO "cling to their guns and religion."

By the way, I wonder why Obama continues to refuse to release his thesis paper from Columbia, or anything else related to his time in various schools for that matter.


Last edited by Maverick_mb; 10/23/08 07:49 AM. Reason: removed edited quote
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Originally Posted by rwinger
This is good read on Obama's father political leanings. I dont even imagine for one second the Dems would be brazen enough to do this
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952499910291

Quote
"What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all," said the senior Obama, a Harvard-educated economist. "This is the government's obligation." The "means" he had in mind were confiscatory taxes on a scale that redefines the term "progressive taxation."

"Theoretically," he wrote, "there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

Thanks for the article.

His father was right, once we embrace the idea that the tax system ought to be used as a means to "spread the wealth" there is nothing that can stop the government from taking everything we own.

The sky isn't falling Marsh. Obama is just trying to balance what the country gains through taxation versus what it spends. Would you prefer we keep the borrow and spend policies that dug us into this hole in the first place? No thanks, hasn't worked out so well. The economy is in the toilet and the national debt is $10 trillion. It needs a shot in the arm to jump start it and more of the same old same old isn't going to accomplish that.

Obama plan isn't "socialism," it's traditional progressive taxation

"Make no mistake," Republican activist John Hancock told a John McCain rally in this St. Louis suburb, "this campaign is a referendum on socialism."

Republicans have been pounding that theme in recent days, even though Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama hardly fits the classic definition of a socialist.

Critics point to Obama's plan to raise the top two tax rates on the wealthy as clear evidence of his socialist bent. However, Len Burman, the director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said that while Obama "would make the tax system more progressive overall, it would not be a radical shift."

It wouldn't qualify as socialism.

"The answer is clearly no, Senator Obama is not a socialist," said Paul Beck, a professor of political science at Ohio State University. "We've had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it."


Socialism involves state ownership of the means of economic production and state-directed sharing of the wealth. America's democratic capitalist system is neither socialist nor pure free market; rather, it mixes the two, and it has at least since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under it, the wealthy pay higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate do. It's a form of sharing the wealth.

Government intervenes in U.S. "free markets" all the time. The deduction that homeowners get for mortgage interest is one form, for it subsidizes housing. The government contracts that sustain the great U.S. weapons makers, such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, are another.

For that matter, President Bush and a lot of other Republicans, including McCain, backed a massive federal government rescue of ailing financial institutions this fall, one that's committed well more than $1 trillion so far to "private" banks, even taking partial ownership of the nine biggest.

Socialism has proved more popular in Europe, including in Great Britain, France, and Italy. In the United States, the term traditionally has been closely associated with communism, and thus claiming the socialist mantle has been political poison. Since World War II and the Cold War, American political candidates who advocate pure socialism rarely have gotten very far. Most notably, Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont was first elected to Congress in 1990 as a socialist, and remains one.

The new round of socialism claims was triggered by Obama's comments last week to "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher in Toledo, Ohio.

Wurzelbacher told Obama that he hoped someday to buy a plumbing business and asked, "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Key Bush administration tax cuts are due to expire Jan. 1, 2011. Obama wants to end breaks for most individuals who earn more than $200,000 and families that make more than $250,000; McCain does not. Obama's position would restore the top rates to where they were under President Clinton, when the economy boomed.

"It's not that I want to punish your success," the Illinois senator told Wurzelbacher. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Republicans pounced, and haven't stopped.

"You see," McCain said in his radio address Saturday, "he believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it.

"Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism, and a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, spreading the wealth around is a familiar idea from the American left."

It was Bush and McCain — who claimed a central role in the drama — who pushed a trillion-dollar government plan to save ailing financial institutions, however.

"If we're moving toward socialism," Beck said, "it's a bipartisan event."

One of the major challenges that the next president faces, former Federal Reserve Board Chairman and Obama backer Paul Volcker said Tuesday, is "how do we reprivatize institutions" that have been "socialized" by the Bush administration?

Many conservatives were uneasy about the bank bailout, but they argue that it's important to remember that "George Bush is not on the ballot," said Brent Littlefield of the American Conservative Union.

He pointed to Obama's tax ideas.

"It's a philosophical concept (Obama) has, and he made it clear when, unprompted, he talked about spreading the wealth around," Littlefield said.

Conservatives often charge that Democrats are engaging in "class warfare" when they want to raise tax rates on the rich — McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, have used the phrase against Obama — but they rarely find such fault when tax cuts benefit the wealthy class disproportionately.

For all that, the "socialist" charge against Obama sticks with some voters.

In Ohio, Sara Cannorozzi, who works for a Springfield promotional products business, explained that while her income is nowhere near the amount that would trigger a tax increase, she hopes it will be someday.

"Obama wants to talk about giving pieces of the pie to everyone, but he never wants to talk about growing the pie," she said. "I don't want to share my pie. If I earn it, I want to keep as much as I can."

Want2Stay


Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 346
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 346
Reminder: Discuss the candidates and the issues respectfully please. Personal attacks of fellow members will NOT be tolerated.

The moderating team and the Harleys thank you for your cooperation.


Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 558
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 558
Forever,
What happened to ethics in journalism?? What happened to telling a story exactly as it happened, not telling parts of the story that followed the journalists agenda? Which is a Liberal, socialist agenda.

I'm so sick of the liberal slant and spin from ALL of the national and most of the cable news outlets... rant2

I was sickened when I saw the news piece on NBC about Palin and her comment about what the VP does. By the way, having a 4th grader myself and asking her, thought Sarah did a great job with the explaination since she was talking to a child, NOT AN ADULT.

Had that been Bidden, and he said the exact some thing, they would have said how wonderful he did explaining things to a 3rd grader.

The liberal left are famous from saying that Bush "stole" the 2004 election. Where are they now, screaming about their Liberal Left Media "stealing" the 2008 election for "Obama the boy wonder"?

I'm sure that the Lefters on here will have something liberally nasty to say to spin it for Obama/Bidden.




Me46
FWH42
Married 19 yrs
EA 4/07 - 4/08
(Confirmed by polygraph that it had not gone PA)
Dday1 4/13/08
Dday2 8/8/08
S26
S16
D10
Trying to Recover
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 810
R
rwinger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 810
Here's the deal from my perspective....

40% do not pay any taxes currently. The top 10% pay more than half the country's bills. I do believe that Tax and Spend is wrong and Borrow and Spend is also wrong.

People need to make a decision one day - cut back govt (radical slashing) and pay same or less taxes - this involves individuals taking responsibility for their own happiness and welfare (novel concept). OR the people are going to have to pay more for govt services. Personnally - anyone relying for govt to secure their happiness and well-being are going to be sadly disappointed. Just ask anyone from NOLA after Katrina.

I also believe that if the people dont make a rational and good decision that one day our currency and economy will implode on itself. Current status of the last 40yrs (Dem or GOP) will not go forever. I prefer less is better when it comes to govt spending and services.

I worked 2 jobs for over a decade (never making more than 60K a year) but nevertheless my net worth is over 250K (was higher last month unfortunately). The key is no debt other than a mortgage and pay cash or debit card as needed. I had to learn this the hard way - credit cards are incredibly enticing. It took years to payoff some stupid debt - I paid over 10K for transmission replacement in 1985 when I figure out the interest on the card that was used. I would be in a better financial condition if I had not spent so many years paying off those cards in the 80's.

Anyway I am not sure if I want to work any more hours in order for Congress to take anymore of MY dollars.

This is basic fundamental difference between Cons and Liberals. It seems that the Liberals in the past had thought that the money I earn is theirs and they are allowing me to take a allowance. I recall this was the basic argument that Reagan had against Carter.

Lets debate with respect and prevent a lock up LOL

Last edited by rwinger; 10/23/08 08:40 AM.

Me:52
W: 52
Married: 32 yrs
2 Sons (29 & 23)
1 Dtr (20)
1 GDtr (2.5) precious little girl
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 558
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 558
Originally Posted by Maverick_mb
Reminder: Discuss the candidates and the issues respectfully please. Personal attacks of fellow members will NOT be tolerated.

The moderating team and the Harleys thank you for your cooperation.

I humbly apologize to anyone that I may have offended.... blush


Me46
FWH42
Married 19 yrs
EA 4/07 - 4/08
(Confirmed by polygraph that it had not gone PA)
Dday1 4/13/08
Dday2 8/8/08
S26
S16
D10
Trying to Recover
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 558
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 558
Originally Posted by rwinger
Here's the deal from my perspective....

40% do not pay any taxes currently. The top 10% pay more than half the country's bills. I do believe that Tax and Spend is wrong and Borrow and Spend is also wrong.

People need to make a decision one day - cut back govt (radical slashing) and pay same or less taxes - this involves individuals taking responsibility for their own happiness and welfare (novel concept). OR the people are going to have to pay more for govt services. Personnally - anyone relying for govt to secure their happiness and well-being are going to be sadly disappointed. Just ask anyone from NOLA after Katrina.

I also believe that if the people dont make a rational and good decision that one day our currency and economy will implode on itself. Current status of the last 40yrs (Dem or GOP) will not go forever. I prefer less is better when it comes to govt spending and services.

I worked 2 jobs for over a decade (never making more than 60K a year) but nevertheless my net worth is over 250K (was higher last month unfortunately). The key is no debt other than a mortgage and pay cash or debit card as needed. I am not sure if I want to work any more hours in order for Congress to take anymore of MY dollars.

This is basic fundamental difference between Cons and Liberals. It seems that the Liberals in the past had thought that the money I earn is theirs and they are allowing me to take a allowance. I recall this was the basic argument that Reagan had against Carter.

Lets debate with respect and prevent a lock up LOL

Rwinger.....this is why this country should be moving to an across the broad tax where everyone pays the same % regardless of income.

All that "redistributing the wealth" does is cause more (like we need more people living off the government and the wealthy) people not to want to work hard to Achieve a higher standard of living. Why do it when the liberal government wants to slap your hand for making more money then they think that you need.

While my H and I DO NOT make any where close to the $250K....we do have HOPE that we will at some point and work hard every day to achieve it. But what's the point now if Obama is going to require even more taxes at that level and above?



Me46
FWH42
Married 19 yrs
EA 4/07 - 4/08
(Confirmed by polygraph that it had not gone PA)
Dday1 4/13/08
Dday2 8/8/08
S26
S16
D10
Trying to Recover
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 584 guests, and 71 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Bibbyryan860, Ian T, SadNewYorker, Jay Handlooms, GrenHeil
71,838 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5