If Romney loses, how many riots will there be?

[Hitesrunprincess]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, seccession can mean a whole slew of things, unfortunately, when it comes to seccession in regards to the Constitution it only means one thing - total secession from the union.
A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believed that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic." That's far less than it took to avoid Rmoneyism.

This is true.... Seems I read once that Jefferson believed that states had the right to peacefully seceed from the Union. Don't recall if it was an essay, speech, or letter, I was reading.....

Just think, the difference between the American Revolution and the Civil War is that during the American Revolution, the rebels won.....

[Ferrerman]

Hitesrunprincess wrote:

<quoted text>It does seem legit, but each person has their own idea of what constitutes succeeding in America. I know people who are really deep into the secession movement and those that feel the best way to change the government is from within. Ferrerman--excuse me--the troll who is posting with a parody of my name, is under the assumption that I am a rabid secessionist and that I'm anti-Obama/pro-Romney. He's incorrect on oh so many things, among them are the fact that I am NOT pro-Romney, WASN'T pro-Bush, AM NOT a secessionist, have NEVER read his blog, and WON'T take him shoe shopping.

AND, I do NOT live in your head!

I only stop in to use the bathroom.

[milwaukee69]

Hitesrunprincess wrote:

<quoted text>This is true.... Seems I read once that Jefferson believed that states had the right to peacefully seceed from the Union. Don't recall if it was an essay, speech, or letter, I was reading.....
Just think, the difference between the American Revolution and the Civil War is that during the American Revolution, the rebels won.....

Yes, but the nation was ruled by the English tyrants during the Revolutionary War. We didn't have a union to secceed from. We instead fought for our independence. It gradually grew into a world war against Great Britain. Huge difference.

[Hitesrunprincess]

Ferrerman wrote:

<quoted text>AND, I do NOT live in your head!
I only stop in to use the bathroom.

<tosses Ferrerman a sponge and cleaner> Well if you can reach those windows, you could give them a wash for me, thanks....

[Hitesrunprincess]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, but the nation was ruled by the English tyrants during the Revolutionary War. We didn't have a union to secceed from. We instead fought for our independence. It gradually grew into a world war against Great Britain. Huge difference.

Ya think? Could be, but I always looked at it as opposing a tyrannical government, you know--taxation without representation and all that sort of jazz.

[milwaukee69]

Hitesrunprincess wrote:

<quoted text>Ya think? Could be, but I always looked at it as opposing a tyrannical government, you know--taxation without representation and all that sort of jazz.

Actually, it's not taxation without representation - we elect those officials into office - it's call a democracy, arguably though. Back in 1776 we weren't a union - yet. We formed a union to "rebel" the tyrants who were taxing us without representation. Our government - although a majority elected - is hardly tyrannical. If you want a great example of modern day tyranny, visit Venezuala. Tell Chavez I said hello. <snicker>

[Knightkore]

Would what is happening in Gaza be considered a "riot"?

I mean once President Hussein Obama was re-elected seems all hellified heck is breaking loose...

Just not here...

[Hitesrunprincess]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, it's not taxation without representation - we elect those officials into office - it's call a democracy, arguably though. Back in 1776 we weren't a union - yet. We formed a union to "rebel" the tyrants who were taxing us without representation. Our government - although a majority elected - is hardly tyrannical. If you want a great example of modern day tyranny, visit Venezuala. Tell Chavez I said hello. <snicker>

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't make my post clear. I know we're a democracy now, I was talking about during the revolution (when you said it turned into a world war against GB) THAT was when it was taxation without representation. I had just never looked at it as a world war against Britain.
Personally, I think if you don't feel represented by the government, you should vote for the most viable candidate to get the result you want.
No thanks on the visit to Chavez, if I decide to visit somewhere South of Kentucky for the winter, I doubt I'll go THAT far South...lol.

[Hitesrunprincess]

Knightmare wrote:

Would what is happening in Gaza be considered a "riot"?
I mean once President Hussein Obama was re-elected seems all hellified heck is breaking loose...
Just not here...

I don't know about Gaza being classified as a riot, I guess it would depend on your point of view....

[Sublime1]

KochBrosRunPrincess wrote:

<quoted text>The 1%ers want to pay less than the average middle class guy does. The 1% ARE strongly represented by many struggling Americans like Sam, Craine and Dr Dirty. Why? I can't tell you. Sheep just can't think things through.

As bill Clinton said, even if you taxed him and folks like him, aka the 1%, at 100% it still wouldn't solve our budget mess. Okay, Mr. Marx.

So, stop acting like we are ONLY talking only about taxing folks with Learjets. There aren't enough of them.

At a certain point you should just acknowledge that to do all the "wonderful" things you and the dems want to do to "help" people, you have to raise taxes fairly significantly on the the 2%-50%ers who actually pay federal income tax, along with the 1%ers.

I can tell you, to the extent my taxes go up ... and they will next year, regardless, I will be spending less. I don't think I'm alone. To the extent the 2%-50%ers are spending less, the economy will grow slower along with the pace of job creation. I do believe if given a choice Americans would rather have jobs verses handouts.

[milwaukee69]

Hitesrunprincess wrote:

<quoted text>I'm sorry, I guess I didn't make my post clear. I know we're a democracy now, I was talking about during the revolution (when you said it turned into a world war against GB) THAT was when it was taxation without representation. I had just never looked at it as a world war against Britain.
Personally, I think if you don't feel represented by the government, you should vote for the most viable candidate to get the result you want.
No thanks on the visit to Chavez, if I decide to visit somewhere South of Kentucky for the winter, I doubt I'll go THAT far South...lol.

The Revolutionary War began as a war between Great Britain and the United States, but gradually grew into a world war between Britain on one side and the United States, France, Netherlands and Spain on the other. The main result was an American victory, with mixed results for the other powers.

The war was the result of the political American Revolution. Colonists galvanized around the position that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unconstitutional.

The British Parliament insisted it had the right to tax colonists. The colonists claimed that, as they were British subjects, taxation without representation was illegal. The American colonists formed a unifying Continental Congress and a shadow government in each colony, though at first remaining loyal to the king.

The American boycott of taxed British tea led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773, when shiploads of tea were destroyed. London responded by ending self-government in Massachusetts and putting it under the control of the British army with General Thomas Gage as governor.

And then the fight started.

[milwaukee69]

Sublime1 wrote:

<quoted text>
As bill Clinton said, even if you taxed him and folks like him, aka the 1%, at 100% it still wouldn't solve our budget mess. Okay, Mr. Marx.
So, stop acting like we are ONLY talking only about taxing folks with Learjets. There aren't enough of them.
At a certain point you should just acknowledge that to do all the "wonderful" things you and the dems want to do to "help" people, you have to raise taxes fairly significantly on the the 2%-50%ers who actually pay federal income tax, along with the 1%ers.
I can tell you, to the extent my taxes go up ... and they will next year, regardless, I will be spending less. I don't think I'm alone. To the extent the 2%-50%ers are spending less, the economy will grow slower along with the pace of job creation. I do believe if given a choice Americans would rather have jobs verses handouts.

There are jobs out there - something Conservatives always fail to see. Being one dimensional in your job search will keep you jobless - whether in this economy or others before it. In order to become successful in today's market, you need to think flex. We have job openings up here - a lot of them we can't fill - and we'll do the training and provide schooling. I'm not going to lie - it's tough work - sometimes 12 hours a day, 7-days-a-week. But they are great-paying jobs.

The only way to fight the income tax increase is to better your job skills - and you marketability. The days of free handouts is over - unemployment benefit extensions is what got us in trouble in the first place.

Lastly, and this isn't directed at you Subby - living on Topix for 8-10 hours a day is not improving your job skills.

[Hoosier Hillbilly]

M69 said:
I'm not going to lie - it's tough work - sometimes 12 hours a day, 7-days-a-week.
HH says:
And that's the reason there's unemployment, no one wants a job where you actually have to work-see what the unions created, and then Obama comes along and makes it worse.
People today think it's all owed to them - how dare you say I must work to be payed!

[milwaukee69]

Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:

M69 said:
I'm not going to lie - it's tough work - sometimes 12 hours a day, 7-days-a-week.
HH says:
And that's the reason there's unemployment, no one wants a job where you actually have to work-see what the unions created, and then Obama comes along and makes it worse.
People today think it's all owed to them - how dare you say I must work to be payed!

Exactly how hard did Rmoney have to work to get his $$$?

[Hoosier Hillbilly]

"Exactly", I can't say, it comes easier for some than others. Sometimes preparedness and opportunity do not meet each other at opportune times.
Was that a analogy or axiology milwaukee69?

[Hoosier Hillbilly]

PS: but 'we' must be prepared in any case, and todays work force is not doing that.
[Or should I say "Out of work force]

[milwaukee69]

Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:

M69 said:
I'm not going to lie - it's tough work - sometimes 12 hours a day, 7-days-a-week.
HH says:
And that's the reason there's unemployment, no one wants a job where you actually have to work-see what the unions created, and then Obama comes along and makes it worse.
People today think it's all owed to them - how dare you say I must work to be payed!

The HUGEST problem right now is that no Republican will admeit that there is just as many out-of-work Conservatives as there are Liberals. Laziness knows no bounderies.

[Hoosier Hillbilly]

That's because the conservatives got tired of working to make the liberals living for them.
Politics is the last concern, it's people!

[milwaukee69]

Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:

That's because the conservatives got tired of working to make the liberals living for them.
Politics is the last concern, it's people!

Stop eat that lead paint!!!

You are truly one omni-polar individual...with a cyber-degree in mathematics fromEKU.

[Sublime1]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
There are jobs out there - something Conservatives always fail to see. Being one dimensional in your job search will keep you jobless - whether in this economy or others before it. In order to become successful in today's market, you need to think flex. We have job openings up here - a lot of them we can't fill - and we'll do the training and provide schooling. I'm not going to lie - it's tough work - sometimes 12 hours a day, 7-days-a-week. But they are great-paying jobs.

There are some, but there are not enough of good jobs.

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
The only way to fight the income tax increase is to better your job skills - and you marketability. The days of free handouts is over - unemployment benefit extensions is what got us in trouble in the first place.
Lastly, and this isn't directed at you Subby - living on Topix for 8-10 hours a day is not improving your job skills.

For some folks, it’s not really viable to increase your job skills and marketability. I went to college and graduate school, already. To the extent the government raises my taxes, it just means I do less spending. The point being, when we all do less spending, the economy grows slower … when the economy grows slower there are less jobs for folks.