Money for greatnpowerfuloz


User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
17 Dec 2013, 6:22 pm

greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
Cannonpointer » 17 Dec 2013 5:12 pm wrote:
This kid is too WEALTHY to know right from wrong:


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1544508

He gets to go to a 500k per annum country club with riding stables and swimming pools for killing four of us "little people."



Ethan Couch, 16, was sentenced to 10 years' probation Tuesday for a drunken crash that killed four people.
A spoiled Texas teen who killed four in a drunken driving accident dodged prison and was sentenced to probation instead after defense lawyers argued his wealthy parents never taught him right from wrong.
Ethan Couch, 16, was facing 20 years behind bars for the horrific June wreck, but instead walked out of a Fort Worth courtroom Tuesday with 10 years' probation.
The rich brat's legal team said he needed counseling, not hard time, and proposed sending him to a posh Southern California treatment facility that would cost his family $500,000 a year.
Image

Couch was drunk and high on valium when he smashed into a disabled car on the side of a road near Burleson, Tex., killing four people.
For now, he was set to remain at a juvenile detention center until authorities determined his fate.
State District Judge Jean Boyd's decision to let the teen walk had the victims' families outraged.


In 25 years he'll graduate from Devry and have a hell of 'bad boy' story to tell his new friends.

Seriously, I read about this a week ago and was disappointed to learn that he hadn't gotten into his pickle by murdering his parents while they were asleep. String those rich bastards up, I say. In lieu of that, I hope the civil case cleans them out and junior is left to sell his ass to rich white Republicans.
1

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
17 Jan 2014, 2:02 pm

greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
Candy » 15 Jan 2014 7:26 pm wrote:
Nighthawk » 15 Jan 2014 6:43 pm wrote:

I will ask you the same amazingly simple question I have asked dozens and dozens of other libs before-

Why do you think we need a public option for health insurance, but we don't seem to need public options in industries such as computers, TV's, supermarkets, tools, appliances, and thousands of others? Why do all these other industries seem to always keep trying to LOWER their prices while improving their customer service, innovation, quality, etc, all by themselves?


Hello Nighthawk. Hope you are well.

Nighthawk, I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but I'll give it a go.

Some of the reasoning for 'the public option' is stated in the wikipedia source (ie compeition). Actually, I feel there are 'public options' with regards to the industries you listed. Example televisions; there are many manufacturers of televisions. If there were only one or two tv mfr's, you'd see higher sale prices, you agree?

It's astounding, the high premium costs for health insurance. My costs alone is around $5000 a year, and without intervention, rates will increase, as they have, as I get older. As I mentioned earlier, BCBS has had control of my region for decades.

Don't you believe BCBS rates would decrease with some stiff competition?


The UK has a public health option called the NHS. Having to compete with a government providerhas forced down private insurance premiums.. The other reason for lower premiums is due to the governments ability to negotiate drug prices, and medical equipment. Buying in bulk(quantity of scale) is the best way to get the best prices from manufacturers and distributors and benefits both the government and private insurance by lowering the price of healthcare overall.
1

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
19 Jan 2014, 8:31 am

Post 19 Jan 2014, 8:31 am
greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
rayj » 18 Jan 2014 10:11 pm wrote:


I'm sure the dopey libs think this is an isolated case.....


I'd have to be convinced of its veracity, first.

Not exactly unbiased reporting by a credible source.

Besides, I'm much more concerned with the peanuts being given away higher up the ladder. This is just more racist knee-jerking and poor bashing.
1

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
19 Jan 2014, 5:50 pm

greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
TheAmerican » 19 Jan 2014 8:57 am wrote:
Do the wealthy Chinese know something we don't?

A new report shows that 64 percent of Chinese millionaires have either emigrated or plan to emigrate—taking their spending and fortunes with them. The United States is their favorite destination.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/101345275


And they're allowed to immigrate here on what basis?

Where's Huey with his vast knowledge of US immigration law when you need him?

Oh wait, they're wealthy. The laws don't apply to them, I assume.
1

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
20 Jan 2014, 1:54 pm

greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
This room is for honest, respectful debate for those who desire it.

The topic poster can choose their own opponents via PM or open the debate to anyone who has a membership in the Profundum Disputatio group. The OP should state their preference in their opening post.

Honest, respectful debate means no trolling, no spamming the thread with worn out talking points which can't be supported by reliable and unbiased linked sources. No name-calling, invective or threats.

Honest, respectful debate does not mean the debate can't become a heated one, as long as all parties maintain a respectful attitude towards one another.

There are a number of NHB members who would probably gain a lot from the sport of real debate but sadly, this room is not for everyone. For them, there's the ghost threads on NHB. Those who can't behave themselves in this room will find themselves barred either temporarily or permanently or have their posts deleted or moved.

This room will also double as a holding room for resource information and threads that are deemed worthy of retention, like Hannibal's thread about the incestuous world of the talking head "sources" people often quote - their interrelationships with political organization and administrations.
A reference bank that can be easily accessed for the already sourced evidence that Bill Clinton did not have relations with Obama's Kenyan grandmother and cannonpointer is not a hermaphrodite....anymore.

I suspect this room will appeal to some more than others and what they're looking for will ultimately determine how it develops.

I will be culling some of the threads already started here.
1

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
20 Jan 2014, 1:54 pm

greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
This room is for honest, respectful debate for those who desire it.

The topic poster can choose their own opponents via PM or open the debate to anyone who has a membership in the Profundum Disputatio group. The OP should state their preference in their opening post.

Honest, respectful debate means no trolling, no spamming the thread with worn out talking points which can't be supported by reliable and unbiased linked sources. No name-calling, invective or threats.

Honest, respectful debate does not mean the debate can't become a heated one, as long as all parties maintain a respectful attitude towards one another.

There are a number of NHB members who would probably gain a lot from the sport of real debate but sadly, this room is not for everyone. For them, there's the ghost threads on NHB. Those who can't behave themselves in this room will find themselves barred either temporarily or permanently or have their posts deleted or moved.

This room will also double as a holding room for resource information and threads that are deemed worthy of retention, like Hannibal's thread about the incestuous world of the talking head "sources" people often quote - their interrelationships with political organization and administrations.
A reference bank that can be easily accessed for the already sourced evidence that Bill Clinton did not have relations with Obama's Kenyan grandmother and cannonpointer is not a hermaphrodite....anymore.

I suspect this room will appeal to some more than others and what they're looking for will ultimately determine how it develops.

I will be culling some of the threads already started here.
1

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
21 Jan 2014, 3:00 am

greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
tharock220 » 20 Jan 2014 11:29 pm wrote:
Brattle Street » 20 Jan 2014 11:25 pm wrote:

is there some point when contraction of the middle class can become sufficient threat?…. save the fact waving. What you must mean is, "You 'believe' she doesn't care, and you believe her only goal is to get elected.

which is about as meaningful as me saying i believe that you are a bandwagon partisan skeptic


Why is it a threat???


The threat is invisible to those who don't see a healthy, wealthy middle class as essential to a healthy, wealthy economy, They are usually the same head in the sand individuals who lack knowledge of their own country's history.

For some, the potential of a two class system doesn't worry them in the least. They're just ignorant enough to believe they'll be at the top with the wealth creators, either by luck or as reward for years of loyal bootlicking.
1

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
21 Jan 2014, 2:36 am

greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
Cedarswamp » 20 Jan 2014 8:06 pm wrote:


It's disgusting that the democrats fought against changing that.


So disgusting, those conservative racist Dems now call themselves Republicans in the hopes a few will be fooled into believing it was never them that done it, even as they push for a return to the glory days of segregation and total dominance over women.
1

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
21 Jan 2014, 2:39 am

greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2014 12:47 am wrote:
tharock220 » 21 Jan 2014 12:06 am wrote:

Your side's opinion is that the negro and the woman are incapable of being successful on their own and thus need government help from the same white people who are supposedly holding them down in exchange for political fealty to those very same white oppressors.


That's your take. Mine is that they needed help against organized repression from your side. To hear your kind tell it, Jim Crow never happened. :)


Actually, their new take is 'The black man had it better under Jim Crow' evidenced solely by the fact that they weren't on welfare.
1

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
21 Jan 2014, 2:47 am

greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
tharock220 » 21 Jan 2014 12:06 am wrote:
Your side's opinion is that the negro and the woman are incapable of being successful on their own and thus need government help from the same white people who are supposedly holding them down in exchange for political fealty to those very same white oppressors.


Poor Republicans. In 50 years they've never been in a position to rectify the problem.
1

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
20 Jan 2014, 5:24 pm

greatnpowerfuloz Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 14184
RichClem » 20 Jan 2014 2:51 pm wrote:
Cannonpointer » 12 Jan 2014 9:44 pm wrote:
He has been reduced to arguing for "traditional values." Whose traditions, I wonder? Larry Craig's?


If you put a little thought into it, I'm sure you could figure it out.

Self reliance, freedom, tolerance, traditional moral values like sexual restraint, respect for the sanctity of life.


Values that are much more valuable when actually exhibited in one's actions and behaviors rather that paid lip service to.

I'll add a few more: Charity, compassion, respect for another's privacy, fairness, promotion of peace, giving a voice to those who have none, defying oppression, arrogance, greed, violence, bigotry, war, and willful ignorance.

With no exceptions.
12