or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by SDW2001

 If you think that statement could possibly be true, then you're part of the problem.  You're claiming that if the United States reduced its defense budget by about 40 billion dollars, we could end world hunger.  Laughably stupid in so many ways.  
 That's stupid.  
This is bad for consumers, certainly. As a Prime member, I love paying $100 a year so Amazon can tell me I can't order certain things at all.
 I don't agree.  jimmac brings this up for one reason:  gloating.  He LOVES that we didn't find WMD in Iraq.  He also paints a picture where every conservative who supported the war was wrong, and that somehow them being wrong makes them wrong about everything for the rest of their lives.  He doesn't read, but I've posted many times that the belief that Saddam had WMD was nearly universal at the time, from conservatives to liberals, from the GOP to the Democrats, from the...
 I started that thread on 9/4/2012.  Show me one thing from that OP that was wrong at the time.  By the way...that phrase you're using?  I don't think you know what it means.  
 Totally unrealistic and counter to the principles of the free market.  Capital flows along the path of least resistance.  If you want Apple to bring more money back into the U.S., you have to remove some of the obstacles.  Secondly, they get beneficial tax treatment because that's the law. The complexity of international tax law is way beyond what any of us laymen understand.  You can't just wave a wand and say "you have to pay U.S. tax rates now!"  
 Exactly.  Ireland has certain laws that are beneficial.  It's not at all surprising that corporations choose to do business there.  It would be no different than if Pennsylvania said it was eliminating all corporate taxes for 10 years.  Businesses would flock to the state.  
 I'm just going by the polling data.  I'm not sure why reading a large portion of data and summarizing various sources' conclusions would be amusing.    I don't know to what you are referring.    Wow.  10 years later, and you're still bringing up WMDs in Iraq.  That's impressive.  As for "incredibly wrong about everything," that's a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate claim.     Impeachment has nothing to do with punishing a President.  ;)   Well, apparently you don't read...
 LOLOLOL.   Your party's President lives in the smallest bubble since Nixon's last days, and we're out of touch?  The Democrats are going to take a historic shellacking in 2014, and we're out of touch.  The President is pushing job-destroying climate change actions, closing coal plants and making electricity skyrocket all while gas is still almost $4 a gallon....and we're out of touch? 
 Wishful thinking?  I just stated that while I consider impeachment absolutely necessary after this President's wanton lawlessness, it's unlikely to happen.  I am noting, however, that the word is starting to be used in public.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you disagree, even though his law breaking is absolutely indisputable.   As for 2016, who knows.  I don't think Hillary is as invincible as you might believe.  It really depends on who the GOP runs.  I know...
New Posts  All Forums: