Jump to content

Supposn

Member
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Supposn

  1. Only Trump & Sanders acknowledge USA’s chronic trade deficits extents of harm; no candidates propose explicit answers. Refer to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances affects upon their nations economies” within Wikipedia’s article entitled “Trade balances” and/or the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”. Respectfully, Supposn
  2. Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP, jobs and median wage. It is not our global trade but our chronic annual trade deficits that are a significant drag upon our economy. Annual Trade deficits’ are ALWAYS a net drag upon their nation’s economy. They drag upon their nation’s GDP, numbers of jobs and purchasing power of their median wage. I’m a proponent of a proposal to reduce USA’s trade deficit of goods as described within the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”. The proposal for transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) is unilateral and its entire net costs are entirely funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods. If we consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the proposed policy would be of some benefit to every USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods anywhere in he world. It would increase prices to USA purchasers of imported goods and is an indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods. Due to the proposed policy price increases of imports to USA purchasers and reductions of USA export goods’ prices to foreign purchasers would be substantially much more market rather than government determined. Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” And To the paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade”. Respectfully Supposn
  3. Politically partisan electronic messaging; (i.e. political advertisments): Advertisements are meant to motivate people; political advertisements are meant to motivate potential voters. If a message is or is not a partisan political comment can and often is a subjective determination. Government is political; it’s unreasonable to expect a government objectively detect and report upon messages’ politically partisan character. Governments performing such tasks are acting contrary to the concepts of liberty and free speech. There are also questions regarding commercial advertisements that may or may not be entwined with politics? Is an advertisement commenting upon the enterprise’s and/or a government’s policies and behavior meant to generally promote the enterprise and/or is it an educational service and/or is it meant to advance or hinder adoption and/or diligent enforcement of government policies entwined with the advertising sponsor’s commercial and/or political interests? All of these questions should be beyond the jurisdiction of governments professing the policies of liberty and free speech policies. On the other hand: Wealthy individuals, great organizations and enterprises contribute vast amounts of money as they compete for access to the ears of our elected public officials, that require those funds to compete for votes, which enables them to purchase electronic advertisements, to motivate voters, that’s required to enable their election or re-election, in order to receive vast amounts of money for their next election campaign. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Let’s digress and discuss the method by which our nation eliminated IBM’s vast competitive advantage over the computer software and services industry. IBM was selling their computer hardware with the prices of their software and other services baked into the purchase prices. IBM was in fact the vast majority of the computer hardware industry and only those who use computer hardware have any need for computer software or services. The Federal laws promoting ACTUAL open competition in market places was employed to obtain a more liberal sales practice policy from IBM. IBM agreed to “unbundle” their equipment sales and rental prices to be “unbundled” from the prices of all other IBM software and other computer services. Computer industry competition, innovation and variety of available products almost immediately began to appear. This was later followed by price reductions that were to an extent induced by the increased competition. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// . Similarly a method has been conceived that would enable us to completely respect free speech and reduce what is now in effect our government's subsidy of partisan political electronic messaging; (i.e. political advertisments). (A) If the federal government chose to have revenue from electronic advertising time sales “unbundled” from all other sales items such as (but not limited to items regarding the messages’ contents), we could disallow any reduction of taxable income for the purchase of electronic advertisement time (for ALL purposes) and for spending that increases the net incomes of any entities that spend to enable electronic messaging. ( Separate tax deductable contributions could continue to be made to non-profit organizations that would provide content to their subsidiary organization that enables or purchases electronic message time. Contributions to such subsidiary organizations would not be tax-deductable. ////////////////////////////////////// By far the most expensive item of any national or state wide political campaign is the purchase of electronic advertising time because although it's of great amounts of expense, it's of much lesser cost per numbers of voters accessed. The advantageous leverage of wealth is among the greatest threats to the concepts free speech and entitlement of citizens’ equal opportunities individually and/or in groups to petition their government officials and their petitions be granted equal considerations. Respectfully, Supposn
  4. Fallopian, general sales taxes are (rarely if ever anything other than) flat rated taxes. Refer to the thread entitled A flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax, http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/174037-a-flat-general-sales-tax-is-less-regressive-than-a-flat-income-tax/ . Respectfully, Supposn
  5. Knee Jerk, The federal income taxes are our primary sources of tax revenue. It is not feasible to repeal the 16th amendment before federal income taxes are entirely eliminated. It‘s imprudent and impractical to replace our entire income tax systems in a single step. I strongly doubt that the U.S. Congress would or should ever pass an act that would accomplish the entire replacement within a single enacting step. I believe we will go to Mars but we will not attempt enacting anything similar to the Fair-tax proposal within a single year’s duration. Each incremental step for the enactment of the Fair tax should simultaneously: (1) Reduce individual and corporate regular income tax rates upon all income brackets by a uniform portion of net taxable incomes (rather than reductions of taxes themselves). (2) Increase the federal general sales tax rate. (3) Increase federal laws and regulations to compensate low income purchasers for the increased sales taxes. I don’t know if any new or modified federal laws or regulations that could reasonably compensate the unemployed or working poor, (i.e. populist legislation) could be to your satisfaction. The dream of eliminating the IRS can only become reality if the IRS would be replaced with other bureaucracy to administer and enforce federal tax laws and regulations. Regardless of names or titles, some people will have to perform IRS's tasks for us. Respectfully, Supposn
  6. DonJoe, for various reason there is great dissatisfaction with our major sources of federal tax revenues, (i.e. our federal individual and corporate income taxes). Among those dissatisfied, there are many who contend that our federal income taxes would be greatly improved if we simplify our tax regulations and had a single tax rate upon taxable income. I contend that our income taxes are not progressive to the extent implied by our progressive rates upon taxable incomes. The consequences of simplifying our tax regulations and a single uniform tax rate upon all taxable income would reduce the proportion of tax revenues paid by higher earners, which increases the proportions from lesser earners; additionally if such regulations were enacted to be revenue neutral, the amounts paid by lesser earners would be significantly greater. Refer to this thread’s 11:48 PM, March 30, 2015 post. Taxes, the median wage’s purchasing power, rates of unemployment are all inter-related factors within our economy; but if we are to successfully deal with them, they should be treated as separate topics. Respectfully, Supposn
  7. A flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax. References to income taxes are generally understood to be taxes based upon net incomes; net incomes are generally understood to be gross revenues of cash or other items of value reduced by the expenditures for the purpose of acquiring revenues. General sales taxes are generally based upon taxing gross values of cash or barter sales transactions of items. Generally intellectual property, real estate, and transferable financial instruments such as stocks, bonds or currency have not been considered as items subject to general sales taxes. “Flat” rated taxes upon net incomes or gross sales transactions are calculated at a uniform rate the basis of those taxes. What are the “real” or “actual” net incomes are subject to differences of opinions among accountants and among tax attorneys. The extent of a taxes “regressive” attribute is dependent upon opinions regarding the consequential proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers relative to their net incomes. Those on the “right” of our political spectrum are of the opinion that government’s social programs are unnecessary expenses and our “progressive” income tax rates are choosing losers and winners. Additionally believe that government social programs are unjustifiable expenses and all of this is of net economic detriment to our nation. The general opinions of those on the “left” of our political spectrum is our income tax regulations currently are more favorable to wealthier segments of our population; thus unjustifiably reducing their taxable incomes proportion to their actual net incomes. The consequences of this is our income tax regulations are less progressive than implied by our progressive tax rates; (thus our taxes are more regressive than otherwise). I’m a populist; I contend that a flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax; I do not believe we can or we should replace our federal income taxes with a general sales tax; I do advocate we incrementally replace income taxes with sales taxes. Excerpted from the thread http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/174111-can-the-fair-tax-ever-be-passed-and-enacted/ : I expect that after one of the incremental steps, we’d have a federal sales tax approaching an unacceptable tax rate and transfers of the revenue sources would be discontinued. If I’m correct we’ll have a hybrid federal tax system. Everyone will pay sales taxes; only higher income earners will pay taxes upon their net incomes. If I’m wrong, federal income taxes could be entirely eliminated. Respectfully, Supposn
  8. Old Mack, I’m not “shunning” you but your posts to this thread do not address the topic of general sales taxes advantages or disadvantages when compared to other methods of acquiring tax revenues. Respectfully, Supposn
  9. LibtardSaidWhat, I’m a proponent of the Fair tax but I do not believe it’s politically or economically practical to replace our entire federal taxes on net incomes with a general sales tax. It would be financially imprudent and politically less feasible and may be impossible to pass a bill transferring our entire federal taxes upon net incomes to a sales tax in a single step. I expect that after one of the incremental enacting steps, we’d have a federal sales tax approaching an unacceptable tax rate and transfers of the revenue sources would be discontinued. If I’m correct we’ll have a hybrid federal tax system. Everyone will pay sales taxes; only higher income earners will pay taxes upon their net incomes. If I’m wrong, federal income taxes could be entirely eliminated. I also believe as long as there’s any federal taxes upon net incomes, both individuals and corporate enterprises should be taxed. Otherwise entrepreneurs would demonstrate little personal incomes; their incomes would be labeled and tax sheltered as their corporations’ earnings. Respectfully, Supposn
  10. William1444, it shouldn’t surprise anyone who reads any of my posts that I have preferences regarding persons and political parties; but the underlying concepts, causes and consequences of what has, does or will occur have always been of my greater concerns. Your post touched on subjects that are of my particular interests and concerns; your post touches on our nation’s economy, numbers of jobs, and global trade policy. You find fault with corporations that are required to function within the legal and commercial environment that’s determined by our governments’ legislators and the preferences of those corporations’ customers. You find Fault with the Republican Party that must satisfy their political funding contributors without which they cannot communicate with the voters and they must also satisfy those that take the trouble to vote and they must also hope that education of those voters facilitate their choosing the more capable legislators. I am a populist; I find much fault with the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is not particularly worthy of my vote. With regard to our global trade policy, google the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates” and the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” excerpted from the “Balance of trade “article or refer to the thread “ http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/165389-reduce-the-trade-deficit;-increase-gdp-median-wage/ ”. Respectfully, Supposn
  11. Skews13, currently USA’s major our progressively rated federal taxes upon net incomes. Some advocate our major tax revenue sources should be transformed to a basis of net incomes to a basis of sales taxes and some provisions should be made to compensate lower income purchasers for their increased federal taxes due to the transformation of tax basis; (i.e. some advocate the “Fair” tax). Sales taxes are usually flat rated taxes. Flat tax rates themselves are neither regressive or progressive and a general sales tax is applied equally to all but general sales taxes are (comparatively to progressive taxes upon net incomes), more regressive than a progressive tax rates applied to net incomes. But due to the political and accounting complexity, the calculation of commercial expenditures that reduce taxpayers’ taxable incomes are drastically overstated and such reductions from gross incomes are seldom applicable to wage and salary incomes. The losses of tax revenues due to legal and fraudulent practices are of greater amounts among higher income individuals and enterprises are grater (than lesser earners) and their aggregate proportion of our total tax revenue losses are greater. Our federal progressive tax rates upon net incomes are effectively much less progressive as we are being led to believe. If we could successfully simplifying our income tax regulations could somewhat mitigate but certainly not approach eliminating the understating of net incomes and the consequential losses of income tax revenues. Unlike the calculation of net incomes, the tasks of calculation and enforcement for general sales taxes are much simpler and less expensive to perform. General s purchases rather than calculations for income tax forms better reflect the ACTUAL net incomes of individual taxpayers. Thus a flat tax upon net incomes would be more regressive than a flat tax upon general sales. This statement in itself is a logical conclusion but does not itself advocate anything. Within the thread “ http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/174111-can-the-fair-tax-ever-be-passed-and-enacted/ “ I do state and explain a federal tax proposal. Respectfully, Supposn
  12. Can the Fair tax ever be passed and enacted? I’m a proponent of the Fair tax but I do not believe it’s politically or economically practical to replace our entire taxes on net incomes with a sales tax. It would be financially imprudent and politically less feasible and may be impossible to pass a bill transferring our entire federal taxes upon net incomes to a sales tax in a single step. I’m continuously told that Fair tax proponents would not support a fair tax bill to be passed and enacted as other than to be accomplished in a single step; the consequences of retaining such a position is the Fair tax bill will never be attempted on a federal level. Each incremental step for the enactment of the Fair tax should simultaneously: (1) Reduce individual and corporate regular income tax rates upon all income brackets by a uniform portion of net taxable incomes (rather than reductions of taxes themselves). (2) Increase the federal general sales tax rate. (3) Increase the provisions to compensate low income purchasers for the increased sales taxes. I expect that after one of the incremental steps, we’d have a federal sales tax approaching an unacceptable tax rate and transfers of the revenue sources would be discontinued. If I’m correct we’ll have a hybrid federal tax system. Everyone will pay sales taxes; only higher income earners will pay taxes upon their net incomes. If I’m wrong, federal income taxes could be entirely eliminated. Respectfully, Supposn
  13. A flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax. References to income taxes are generally understood to be taxes based upon net incomes; net incomes are generally understood to be gross revenues of cash or other items of value reduced by the expenditures for the purpose of acquiring revenues. General sales taxes are generally based upon taxing gross values of cash or barter sales transactions of items. Generally intellectual property, real estate, and transferable financial instruments such as stocks, bonds or currency have not been considered as items subject to general sales taxes. “Flat” rated taxes upon net incomes or gross sales transactions are calculated at a uniform rate the basis of those taxes. What are the “real” or “actual” net incomes are subject to differences of opinions among accountants and among tax attorneys. The extent of a taxes “regressive” attribute is dependent upon opinions regarding the consequential proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers relative to their net incomes. Those on the “right” of our political spectrum are of the opinion that government’s social programs are unnecessary expenses and our “progressive” income tax rates are choosing losers and winners. Additionally believe that government social programs are unjustifiable expenses and all of this is of net economic detriment to our nation. The general opinions of those on the “left” of our political spectrum is our income tax regulations currently are more favorable to wealthier segments of our population; thus unjustifiably reducing their taxable incomes proportion to their actual net incomes. The consequences of this all is our more regressive income tax systems. The regressive character of our current income tax systems are inadequately reduced by our current progressive income tax rates. Additionally they believe that our government’s social programs are also inadequate and they’ are of net social and economic benefit to our nation. I’m a populist; I contend that a flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax. Respectfully, Supposn
  14. A flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax. References to income taxes are generally understood to be taxes based upon net incomes; net incomes are generally understood to be gross revenues of cash or other items of value reduced by the expenditures for the purpose of acquiring revenues. General sales taxes are generally based upon taxing gross values of cash or barter sales transactions of items. Generally intellectual property, real estate, and transferable financial instruments such as stocks, bonds or currency have not been considered as items subject to general sales taxes. “Flat” rated taxes upon net incomes or gross sales transactions are calculated at a uniform rate the basis of those taxes. What are the “real” or “actual” net incomes are subject to differences of opinions among accountants and among tax attorneys. The extent of a taxes “regressive” attribute is dependent upon opinions regarding the consequential proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers relative to their net incomes. Those on the “right” of our political spectrum are of the opinion that government’s social programs are unnecessary expenses and our “progressive” income tax rates are choosing losers and winners. Additionally believe that government social programs are unjustifiable expenses and all of this is of net economic detriment to our nation. The general opinions of those on the “left” of our political spectrum is our income tax regulations currently are more favorable to wealthier segments of our population; thus unjustifiably reducing their taxable incomes proportion to their actual net incomes. The consequences of this all is our more regressive income tax systems. The regressive character of our current income tax systems are inadequately reduced by our current progressive income tax rates. Additionally they believe that our government’s social programs are also inadequate and they’ are of net social and economic benefit to our nation. I’m a populist; I contend that a flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax. Respectfully, Supposn
  15. Independent Sam, there is good reason to suspect the USA derived no significantly critical information due to our employing torture; on the contrary it seems that we achieved confusing ourselves due to contrary and very often untruthful information we evoked by enabling the torture of prisoners. Respectfully, Supposn
  16. Independent Sam, after World War Two the USA and our allies conducted trials charging persons accused of crime against humanity. We imprisoned some and hung others found guilty of such crimes. Many of those crimes were cases of grievous inhumane treatment of prisoners. The USA had then imprisoned, tried and hung many of those found guilty. It is hypocritical that our government should now enact or cause to be enacted what we ourselves deemed to be "crimes against humanity". The measure of inhumanity is not simply life or death but additionally the causing of grievous unnecessary suffering. Torture will certainly impel people to testify but their truth of their testimony is suspect if it was evoked by torture. The only difference between conventional aircraft and our current drone aircraft practices is that drone military attacks are generally result in more limited damage injury and deaths. Those officials responsible for enacting torture were not just president Bush’s officials; they were officials of the USA. Those officials responsible for enacting drone attacks are not just president Obama’s officials; they are officials of the USA. Respectfully, Supposn
  17. SlowMotion426, reducing USA’s federal budget deficit would require setting priorities and determining the policies applied every issue that is affected by and/or affects our federal budget. Within each individual issue there are factors such as determination of commitment that directly or indirectly determine our federal expenditures and revenues. No one has contended that a significant reduction of our federal budget deficit rather than an elimination of our global trade deficit of goods would not likely of greater net benefit to our nation. The reduction of our federal budget is not germane to this discussion. Within this Import Certificate (i.e. IC) trade policy, exporters of USA goods choose to pay the federal fees in order to acquire ICs. The federal fees defray entire net federal direct expenditures due to the enactment of the IC policy. This trade proposal does not in any manner increase the federal budget deficit but due to the economic benefits due to this policy, I cannot conceive how the improved national economy would not tend to reduce our federal budget deficit. USA’s annual trade deficits of goods are always immediately detrimental to our GDP’s and numbers of jobs. Respectfully, Supposn
  18. Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage It is not our global trade but our trade deficits’ that are a significant net detriment to our economy. Annual trade deficits’ are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs. I’m a proponent of a proposal to reduce USA’s trade deficit of goods that was first introduced to the Senate in 2006. The basic concept is exporters of USA goods may choose to have their goods assessed and to pay the federal assessment fees in order to acquire transferable Import Certificates; (ICs) which are issued only to exporters of USA goods for face amounts equivalent to the assessed valuation of their goods. The fees are to defray the direct federal expenditures due to this trade policy; they are not a net federal revenue source. The exporters’ are motivated by transferable IC’s value upon the open global market. Importers of goods are required to surrender ICs with face values to cover the assessed values of the goods they want to bring into the USA. Scarce and precious minerals are specifically listed. The value of such minerals integral to goods are excluded from all goods assessed values. The purpose of this proposed trade policy is to eliminate USA’s annual trade deficit of all assessed goods and significantly reduce or entirely eliminate USA’s trade deficit. Additionally this policy’s an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exported goods. All of this would increase USA’s GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage more than otherwise. [Annual trade deficits are indirectly ALWAYS immediately detrimental to their nation’s GDP which in turn similarly affect numbers of jobs and median wage; annual trade surpluses have a direct and opposite (to deficits’) effect upon their nations’ economy] This policy would be of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA’s borders. If we consider exporting and importing as a single global trade industry, then this proposal would then not be detrimental to any USA industry. Wage and salary earning families benefit from cheaper imported goods but that doesn’t compensate for trade deficits’ detriment to the GDP, numbers of jobs and median wage. Google “ wikipedia, import certificates “ . For further reference google “ wikipedia, balance of trade “ then refer to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” Respectfully, Supposn
  19. Old CM, your post infers the Republican Party has abandoned the political agenda that you continue to advocate. If others that share your opinion and circumstances follow your example, (i.e. denying Republican candidates of your vote), you all will be best advancing your common political agenda. Respectfully, Supposn
  20. Birth control and the ACA. At the commencement of the Affordable Care Act, (AKA the “ACA"), many groups’ policies were medically insured by policies that could not satisfy the qualifying standards of acceptable medical insurance. Political necessity impelled the government to “grandfather” many of such then existing policies that covered those particular groups prior to the ACA’s enactment date. Those waivers of requirements are only available to those particular groups and only for the specific medical insurance plans that covered those groups on the day prior to ACA commencement. The conditions for those insurance pans retaining their grandfather status was written so narrowly that effectively (they will all lose their grandfather status within a relatively small duration of time. Other than those grandfathered plans for specific grandfathered groups, all other insurance plans must meet the ACA’s minimum requirements. As special accommodations for some religious groups that objected to paying for birth control medications, the government required all ACA qualifying medical insurers to pay for such benefits and not require those accommodated groups or their group’s medical beneficiaries to pay any additional costs for birth control; (i.e. total birth control expenditures were co-mingled with all other of overhead expenditures and no co-payments were collected). I’m assuming that president Obama by executive order handle With regard to small non-publicly held commercial enterprises objecting to birth control medication on religious grounds, I’m assuming that president Obama by executive order treat them as the government now treats religious groups. Another alternative by executive order to simply require birth control measures to be comingled within the overhead of all ACA qualified insurance plans. In both of these alternatives, all beneficiaries will be entitled to coverage for birth control measures. Respectfully, Supposn
  21. Wiggums47, I’m a populist and not a socialist; consider the view points of any political minority partisans. Tea Party’s primary objective is to take whatever political action that would advance their political agenda. If promoting the election of what they consider to be the lesser undesirable candidate is not the most effective method to influence the government’s policies, they do not do so. The Republican Party rather than Democrats are closer to Tea Party’s conservative agenda. Tea Party and their members actively participate in Republican primary elections. They refuse to vote and otherwise support what they consider to be lesser conservative Republican candidates in general elections. They have thus achieved great influence within the Republican Party and that influence is reflected by shifting Democratic Party policies further to the right. Thus they have achieved greater influence upon our government’s policies. When forced to choose, the Tea Party chooses to advance their agenda rather than promoting election of candidates that aren't sufficiently conservative. Until those of us who still fully accept the Democrat’s liberal roots commence more emulating the Tea Party’s strategy, we’ll continue to lose ground and contribute our own defeats. Respectfully, Supposn
  22. Don’t vote for ineffective Democrats; vote for none of the above. The Democratic Party spits with impunity upon liberals and lefties and populists; they acquiesce and surrender to conservatives. They’re much less able to accomplish anything sustainable. I hear and read of Tea Party’s taking control of the Republican Party insures conservatives future inability to occupy the White House or gain control of both congressional chambers. I m a populist opposed to “trickle down” economic theorists. I gauge political party’s national political effectiveness by their ability to influence our nation's political policies and I live in a blue congressional district of a blue state. All parties are more effective when they occupy elected offices and less effective when they lose political elections. But unlike Democrats, Republicans and particularly the Tea Party are recently and currently much less ineffective when they are not in power. I attribute this to the Tea Party’s strategic outlook, they of course want to be elected but their primary goal is exert maximum influence upon our nation’s political policies. Tea Partiests won’t hesitate to cripple Republicans who hinder Tea Party goals. Republicans have greater fear and more respect for the ability and willingness of Tea Party to seek retribution for anything undermining or even lesser adherence to conservatism. Republicans believe within safer election districts they need only fight general election skirmishes; but if they fail to respect the Tea Party they evoke all out take-no-prisoners primary wars. Those more on the left of the political spectrum, (e.g. liberals or populists) have not profited from the Tea Party’s examples and thus they can be disrespected or ignored by the remainder of the Democratic Party. I cannot recall a single significant Clinton administration's economic or social accomplishment that has not been undone by the following Republican administrations. I live in a blue state. A Democratic candidate not additionally listed on the ballot as a more liberal third party candidate cannot gain my vote. I do not share the Green Party’s political priorities but I am not generally opposed to their platform and vote for their candidates. I regret that my state does not profit from Nevada’s example. Nevada voters can demonstrate rejection of all of an office's candidates listed upon the ballot by indicating their votes are for “none of (the) above”. Rather than my prior practice of not voting within many general elections, I intend to commence entering “NOA” as a write in candidate within general elections lacking any appropriate candidates on the ballots. Respectfully, Supposn
  23. Liquor advertisement, “We’ll drink it for you”? My hearing is not what it should be but what I hear is often superior to what’s said. I regret that I wasn’t paying full attention to a TV commercial when I was on my computer keyboard. I think I was hearing a liquor commercial; Jack Daniels? I think I heard “if you’re dissatisfied for any reason, just send us back the unused portion and we will drink it for you” Now that’s a warranty that’s fully worthy of my confidence. If that was not the exact wording of the company’s advertisement, it certainly should be so. Respectfully, Supposn

No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • All lives matter.


  • Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


  • By teacher

    Being offended does not make one correct. 


  • By teacher

    Some few days before the next election Mr. Fools is gonna pin my horse thread. it's gonna be horrible, I shall endevour every day to bring some some fresh. 

     

    I still own this cat box.


  • By teacher

    "I'm coming to you for ask a quick favor."


  • By teacher

    "Anyone that places a color in front of their name is racist." That one is not mine, got it from another member. 


  • Where’s all the hot bitches? 


  • By teacher

    Kidding me? 


  • By nuckin futz

    How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • By nuckin futz

    How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • By nuckin futz

    Get me out of Chatbox!


  • By jefftec

    The chatbox stays expanded and is a nuisance blocking screen images. What setting is there to control/collapse chatbox?


  • By kfools

    Just click the no holds barred to collapse it.


  • By XavierOnassis

    diddle dee dee


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...