Big Ol' Smitty

Edit

Bulletproof argument. God, am I gonna piss off every touchy white liberal by Friday or what? To say that pop and rock account for the majority of mainstream releases is not an outrageous claim. If I left rap out and said in spite of high record sales and critical acclaim, our defining artist couldn't come out of Nashville and just left it at that, you wouldn't care. If rap was more important than rock, why is rap relegated to just a few shelves in the store while rock and manufactured pop have the lion's share? EDIT: Snoop Dogg? You're the one who's making this about race, captain. I didn't say a thing. Nor am I pissed off or touchy. Your argument about where the music is put in stores is LAME, so I chose to ignore it. I was raised on country music and still enjoy the songs my mom listened to when I was a kid, but no, I wouldn't have argued against such a statement about country music hasn't achieved the level of crossover appeal as rap. Importance is subjective, and if a lot of people think Eminem is more important than Radiohead (a band that I like a lot), then perhaps he is?

Bulletproof argument.

He said the P was getting in between him and his fans.

Everything I don't like is ancillary, too. Also, if you're going to call everyone on the board stupid you should be able to spell the words that you use to belittle them.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=2985&t=...logy&noseek=one This is based on the work of a prof at Harvard Business--Holt.

Is it just me or is Mountain Dew like nectar for rednecks?

It warranted repeating.

Hi! What up?

When I chirp shorty chirp back. I like dancing to this song because I get to point at different people.

How long before this becomes the "OAO Czech Acts Like an Old Curmudgeon Thread"?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pr...-home-headlines

San Francisco Chronicle, 4/11/04 You are talking strictly about income taxes which are still modestly progressive (although far less so than they have been in the past). Payroll, state, and local taxes are often regressive. Bush's tax cuts led to: 1. a quiet increase in federal fees, which disproportionately affect those with less money 2. cuts in federal grants to states which led to $22 billion in state taxes heaped upon the middle class (according to the National Conference of State Legislatures) As far as corporate taxes go: loopholes, offshore bank accounts, and the like have all but eliminated them. According to a 2004 GAO report, 94% of corporations pay less than 5% of their income in taxes. And you can cut all of that name calling bullshit out, stat.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/17/D8HLNAM00.html

The republicans have that one black guy though don't they? Not in Congress.

2004 Exit Polls: White Men: Bush: 62% Kerry: 37% Whites: Bush: 58% Kerry: 41% White/Evangelical/Born-Again: Bush: 78% Kerry: 21% They don't have a category for white/male/evangelical/born-again, unfortunately. I'm guessing it'd be about 95-5. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html

Also carrots.

Its nothing like that at all. Under Bush, spending has gone up from $1.8632 trillion in 2001 to $2.4722 trillion in 2005--a 24% increase. As of 2005, revenue finally bounced back to pre-Bush levels, and was 8% higher in 2005 than it was in 2001. Here, knock yourselves out, guys. Okay, I was being hyperbolic. My point was that the tax cuts tend to cost WAY more than most of the programs that are being cut. Example: Cost of Bush tax cuts just for top 10% incomes (2004): $148 billion Cost of job training+ Pell grants+ public housing+ low-income rental subsidies+ child care+ insurance for poor children+ low-income energy assistance+ meals for shut-ins+ welfare________________ $61 billion And I would also argue that while revenues may have reached 2001 levels again, but that the structure from which those revenues is extracted has become considerably more regressive.

I couldn't disagree more. Love Dean or hate Dean, his 50 state strategy and energizing the party at state and local levels is exactly what the party needs. Dean doesn't want to ignore huge swaths of the country like the party has been doing for decades now.

Did Hunter Thompson really have a doctorate?

It seems like you're talking about progressive taxation. I've never seen this labeled as conservative or libertarian. I have always thought of it as liberal/progressive, straight out of FDR's playbook. Conservatives/libertarians usually argue for some kind of flat tax or national sales tax.

Zuh? If that's what you want, you got it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...00.html?cnn=yes 3rd paragraph

If, say, William Buckley were President...those things would have never happened. Im not saying hed be a great President or anything but his kind of conservative would have never initiated the same huge mistakes as this current administration. Also, on another note - About these Bush 'tax cuts'...I work in a factory and earn less than $20,000 a year and my weekly taxation is a little over 25%. The times are pretty bad for anyone not very wealthy, yet there are still pliable/moronic folk who voted Bush in '04 for issues like guns, gays, goddamwomensrights and ignored their own financial problems. Do you honestly think the Libs are just gonna tax the ultra rich, and then send that money directly to you in the form of a check? Yeah, cuz that's what he said. There's a thing that we used to have called a progressive taxation. It pretty much doesn't exist anymore. Oh yeah, and we used to tax corporations. And tax wealth and not just work.