Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Niner reading your post it sounds like the rapes ended in 95. WTF!! Mine shows he raped 13 people after his release in 01'. Not trying to mislead anyone. Reading your Channel 4 newscast it sure makes it look like the last rape was in 95. The article I have in my home newspaper says otherwise along with my other link.
|
|
01-13-2005 02:25 PM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
Quote:We know that there is a lack of funding. Why do we have a funding problem, because W and his gang is trying to starve the beast.
Funding problems does not therefore mean lack of funding. Funding problems could mean poor administration not getting the money there. Funding problems could be the initial funds were diverted elsewhere. Funding problems could mean a number of things. Funding problems do not mean, W starved them for it with his tax cut. That is you jumping from A to Z and B-Y be damned.
It's been noted, by more than just me, that there is no sound reasoning to your argument. You don't have any facts, all you have are your assumptions based on two words, "funding problems". From there you've constructed this moronic tale of Bush is responsible for rape.
Quote:The pendulum is beginning to sway back towards me niner. The last Act of this sorry administration's Play is just begun.
The pendulum of lack of logic, bitterness and lunacy? I got news for you bud, it never left your side.
You people are hopeless. :rolleyes:
|
|
01-13-2005 02:30 PM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
The newspaper article I have in my hands clearly STATES
"The 16-year spree was staunched only after a backlog of DNA samples was entered into a suspect catalog. Patton's DNA was collected in November 2001 while he was imprisoned for burglary and other crimes, but was not entered in the data base because FEDERAL FUNDING for testing ran out. Patton raped 13 women in the meantime."
Sandusky Register Thursday Jan. 13 2005 A9
Are you a lawyer? You really have a gift in shaping an argument around something that has nothing to do with what is stated. We have a lack of funds!!! Why is there a lack of funds? No revenue. Why the limited REVENUE........ W's TAX CUTS!!!!!!!!!
|
|
01-13-2005 02:37 PM |
|
Lethemeul
Fancy Pants
Posts: 3,591
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Pirates!
Location: Boogie all the time
|
Dogger Wrote:The newspaper article I have in my hands clearly STATES
"The 16-year spree was staunched only after a backlog of DNA samples was entered into a suspect catalog. Patton's DNA was collected in November 2001 while he was imprisoned for burglary and other crimes, but was not entered in the data base because FEDERAL FUNDING for testing ran out. Patton raped 13 women in the meantime."
Sandusky Register Thursday Jan. 13 2005 A9
Are you lawyer. You really have a gift in shaping an argument around something that has nothing to do with what is stated. We have a lack of funds!!! Why is there a lack of funds? No revenue. Why the limited REVENUE........ W's TAX CUTS!!!!!!!!!
And you've yet to prove why there was a lack of funding. You've made an assumption and you expect the rest of us to believe it.
|
|
01-13-2005 02:40 PM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
Dogger Wrote:The newspaper article I have in my hands clearly STATES
"The 16-year spree was staunched only after a backlog of DNA samples was entered into a suspect catalog. Patton's DNA was collected in November 2001 while he was imprisoned for burglary and other crimes, but was not entered in the data base because FEDERAL FUNDING for testing ran out. Patton raped 13 women in the meantime."
Sandusky Register Thursday Jan. 13 2005 A9
And AGAIN I'LL STATE, you have NO FREAKIN WAY OF KNOWING that 1) funding ran out because of the tax cuts 2) that diverting the initial money there to something else wasn't the cause 3) that if the tax cuts had never happend that there would have been more money there to begin with!!!!
Your argument is stupid, illogical and assinine.
It's no different than me saying Clinton caused 9/11 b/c he didn't take Bin Laden when he had the chance. It's the EXACT lack of reasoning you're trying to make here. Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc. After the fact therefore because of the fact. A frequent logical fallacy committed on this board and you are the poster boy for it today. Take any deductive logic course at any university in America and you'll cover it in the first few weeks.
Quote:Are you a lawyer? You really have a gift in shaping an argument around something that has nothing to do with what is stated. We have a lack of funds!!! Why is there a lack of funds? No revenue. Why the limited REVENUE........ W's TAX CUTS!!!!!!!!!
Would you like me to show you where facts stop and your moronic reasoning start? Just after "lack of funds". Why is there a lack of funds? WE DON'T FREAKIN KNOW!!!!! There are countless reasons why there may be lack of funds. You have no way of knowing why it is. You are making an assumption and just expect us all to agree with you.
You are not stating facts you are stating ASSumptions.
|
|
01-13-2005 02:42 PM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
People think there are no consequences from this tax break. Sadly there is. I just wanted to point out just one ramification. If there was funding to continue putting the DNA samples into the data base 13 women wouldn't have been raped. That is a fact. We had his DNA and we had DNA from other crime scenes. The only thing missing was the 30 dollars to put the swab into the computer. THE ONLY thing we do know is there wasn't money avaiable for a 30 dollar test. Misappropiation of funds, misdirected funds, or NO FUNDS.
We know that W's govt. is knee deep in debt and running to the waist. Now when your in debt you have no avaialble money and sometimes little things like FBI data bases don't recieve the appropiate funding. I say let's roll back the tax cuts and start funding these programs.
|
|
01-13-2005 04:39 PM |
|
Lethemeul
Fancy Pants
Posts: 3,591
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Pirates!
Location: Boogie all the time
|
Quote:I just wanted to point out just one ramification. If there was funding to continue putting the DNA samples into the data base 13 women wouldn't have been raped.
I'll accept that assumption.
Quote:People think there are no consequences from this tax break.
.
.
.
THE ONLY thing we do [k]no[w] is there wasn't enough money for a 30 dollar test. THE ONLY thing we do no is there wasn't enough money for a 30 dollar test. Misappropiation of funds,r misdirected funds, or NO FUNDS.
Still on track...basically.
Quote:Now when your in debt you have no avaialble money and sometimes little things like FBI data bases don't recieve the appropiate funding.
And then you make this claim without any supporting evidence whatsoever. All we're asking you to prove is that the funding for this program was cut to levels so low that the work could not be carried out efficiently and then show that the lack of funding is due to tax cuts.
Just because you say the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.
|
|
01-13-2005 04:47 PM |
|
T-Monay820
Get Rotor-vated!
Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
|
JTiger Wrote:Since we are on the subject, what would you say are the 5 most important programs to keep?
Good topic idea.
<a href='http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/ncaa/invision/index.php?act=ST&f=31&t=15110' target='_blank'>http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/ncaa/invisio...ST&f=31&t=15110</a>
|
|
01-13-2005 04:50 PM |
|
Skipuno
2nd String
Posts: 321
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For: UCF
Location:
|
Dogger Wrote:The last Act of this sorry administration's Play is just begun and I feel it's my responsibility to make people AWARE that these tax cuts have implications!!!!! No one likes to pay TAXES but they are needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What about the implication of tax increases? They also have an effect on things like jobs. You seem to think increasing taxes will solve all the ills of society. Most of the time the problem is not the funding, its jumping though all the hoops to be able to spend the money, plus the fact that operating cost for the goverment to do anything is twice to three times as much as a private company. Its my responsibility as a libertarian to make people aware that the goverment needs to be reformed not just to throw more money into it and hope that fixes the problem. :D
|
|
01-13-2005 10:35 PM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
I do go back and forth on the private sector vs. govt. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Last week I believe the WSJ had an article about a super highway in Texas. This highway is going to have everything from oil and natural gas lines to fiber optics. I believe it will be a 6 lane highway This will all be privately funded. Now here's the catch. They have imminent domain priviledges and can charge tolls. Now you know palms are being greased and the little guy will get screwed. Should a task like this even be in the private domain?
|
|
01-14-2005 09:17 AM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
Dogger Wrote:I do go back and forth on the private sector vs. govt. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Last week I believe the WSJ had an article about a super highway in Texas. This highway is going to have everything from oil and natural gas lines to fiber optics. I believe it will be a 6 lane highway This will all be privately funded. Now here's the catch. They have imminent domain priviledges and can charge tolls. Now you know palms are being greased and the little guy will get screwed. Should a task like this even be in the private domain?
You thnk the government doesn't screw anyone in that respect? 3 words, Georgia 400. It was funded by the government with a toll. The toll was supposed to be in place until the road was paid for. It was paid for about 10 years ago......the toll is still in place.
|
|
01-14-2005 09:35 AM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Has this been a topic in the past? It really doesn't fit the topic heading. What's wrong with the govt. still charging tolls? It's probably funding some other area of need! We have to get away from the govt. is wasteful we need to starve it mentality. It's a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Now I know that sounds a little juvenile but darn it, I still believe in AMERICA and I'm afraid this current train of thought is doing some serious harm to our country. This really is an appropiate time for discussing this with S.S. changes on the table and all.
|
|
01-14-2005 09:49 AM |
|
Lethemeul
Fancy Pants
Posts: 3,591
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Pirates!
Location: Boogie all the time
|
Quote: We have to get away from the govt. is wasteful we need to starve it mentality.
Why? Right after this, you said:
Quote:It's a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
If we the people decide that the gov't has gotten too big, too involved, too inefficient, and too wasteful to carry out its appointed functions efficiently, then by God, we have the right to fix it. If we decide the way to make it work better is to eliminate funding for programs we deem as useless and wasteful, then we have that right.
I personally believe that government is profoundly wasteful. If I had my druthers the government budget, minus defense funding, would be set back to zeros. As needs were identified, funding would be allocated.
|
|
01-14-2005 10:38 AM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
Quote:What's wrong with the govt. still charging tolls? It's probably funding some other area of need!
Here in lies the fundamental problem with the liberal mindset. Essentially you're saying, "who cares if the government is taking more of your money, I'm sure it's being REDISTRIBUTED to something of need." Dogger why don't you just admit you're a socialist?
Quote:We have to get away from the govt. is wasteful we need to starve it mentality. It's a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Now I know that sounds a little juvenile but darn it, I still believe in AMERICA and I'm afraid this current train of thought is doing some serious harm to our country.
Only a liberal would say letting people keep more of THEIR MONEY is doing harm to the country. If you're a drug user Dogger and you need to get clean, do you just keep taking drugs to quit? No, you stop using them. They governement is a tax and spend junkie and the only way to get it clean is to cut down on it's intake. MY FREAKIN MONEY!!.
You don't believe in America, you believe in Canada. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And a central point of that is life, liberty and PROPERTY. You don't know better, government doesn't know better, how best MY MONEY can be spent.
There is nothing stopping you from donating more of your money to the government. You think you're under taxed? Write a check to the government. But don't advocate taking more from me for the "greater good" as YOU SEE IT. That's not America.
|
|
01-14-2005 11:04 AM |
|
JTiger
Grand Master Sexaaayyyy
Posts: 16,068
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 282
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Germantown
|
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Quote:What's wrong with the govt. still charging tolls? It's probably funding some other area of need!
Here in lies the fundamental problem with the liberal mindset. Essentially you're saying, "who cares if the government is taking more of your money, I'm sure it's being REDISTRIBUTED to something of need." Dogger why don't you just admit you're a socialist?
Quote:We have to get away from the govt. is wasteful we need to starve it mentality. It's a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Now I know that sounds a little juvenile but darn it, I still believe in AMERICA and I'm afraid this current train of thought is doing some serious harm to our country.
Only a liberal would say letting people keep more of THEIR MONEY is doing harm to the country. If you're a drug user Dogger and you need to get clean, do you just keep taking drugs to quit? No, you stop using them. They governement is a tax and spend junkie and the only way to get it clean is to cut down on it's intake. MY FREAKIN MONEY!!.
You don't believe in America, you believe in Canada. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And a central point of that is life, liberty and PROPERTY. You don't know better, government doesn't know better, how best MY MONEY can be spent.
There is nothing stopping you from donating more of your money to the government. You think you're under taxed? Write a check to the government. But don't advocate taking more from me for the "greater good" as YOU SEE IT. That's not America.
Can you have a discussion without name calling? If your argument holds water you don't have to use words like "Liberal, drug user, or socialist"
Furthermore, you grip about spending, but Bush hasn't vetoed one spending bill yet. However, under Clinton we had a balanced budget. You do the math.
|
|
01-14-2005 11:13 AM |
|
Bourgeois_Rage
That guy!
Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:
|
The drug user wasn't a name calling it was an example.
|
|
01-14-2005 11:18 AM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
JTiger Wrote:Can you have a discussion without name calling? If your argument holds water you don't have to use words like "Liberal, drug user, or socialist"
1. What's wrong with using liberal? It's a term to define a political ideology that Dogger, for one, holds to.
2. Drug user, as Rage pointed out, was an example, I wasn't calling Dogger a drug user. :rolleyes:
3. Socialist is a term to derfine a political ideology/philosophy. You can find it in the dictionary.
Quote:Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
This is, in point of fact, what Dogger is advocating. Taking money in taxes, tolls, etc. and redistributing it for the "greater good".
Put a band aid over that bleeding heart. Geez. :rolleyes:
Quote:Furthermore, you grip about spending, but Bush hasn't vetoed one spending bill yet. However, under Clinton we had a balanced budget. You do the math.
1) I have addressed this already. I don't agree with the amount Bush has spent. I've stated that on more than one occassion.
2) Clinton had a balanced budget because he had no choice. A republican congress gave him no choice but to sign it. Also, it was less painful for him to sign it b/c tax revenues were so high due to the market/tech boom.
|
|
01-14-2005 11:30 AM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
The problem as I see it. A pure capitalistic society has never worked. We have and continue to live in a socialistic society. So yes, I am a socialist in those regards. Now, do any of you who preach the evils of socialism believe we could of had a moon shot under private financing? Do any of you disagree with the Sherman anti-trust laws? These are just two benefits of living in this socialistic society of ours.
|
|
01-14-2005 11:41 AM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
TAX and SPEND junkie
TAX and SPEND (in a Jim Mora playoffs?? playoffs?? voice from a couple of years back)
I would do back flips for a tax and spender instead of the borrow and spend guy we have now!
|
|
01-14-2005 11:47 AM |
|
Lethemeul
Fancy Pants
Posts: 3,591
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Pirates!
Location: Boogie all the time
|
Dogger Wrote:The problem as I see it. A pure capitalistic society has never worked. We have and continue to live in a socialistic society. So yes, I am a socialist in those regards. Now, do any of you who preach the evils of socialism believe we could of had a moon shot under private financing? Do any of you disagree with the Sherman anti-trust laws? These are just two benefits of living in this socialistic society of ours.
Doggy, read the definition of socialism:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
We do not have a pure capitalistic society, but it's not a socialist society either.
|
|
01-14-2005 11:49 AM |
|