This thread is barrelling headlong into a LOCK. 
Smoking and Chess
Sort:
i'm keeping my fingers crossed for Off-Topic
This thread is "smoking hot," the chess pieces (and players) are on fire.
Not even a hurricane can dampen the enthusiasm seen above.
Oct 30, 2012
0
#125
When Obama held up the oil pipe line that was a plus for him! Canada does not want that pipe line going through there counrty east to west coast. When Rom-money says less government controls he is (not) talking about the average jon=doe, but big corporations. So they can continue to pollute with very little restrictions. My young neighbor just came down with Parkinsons disease, and she was a health conscious person and the neighbor on the other side of me just had a baby and the child has downs-sydrome. Now with this sp?= fracking to extract gas cheaper, and oil pipe line will destroy out heart land. This is our bread belt and Canada would never do that to themselves but the Reps have not problem with it$$$, Our land and water is so precious, and may become uninhabitable! It sad what greed can do!
KJtri5 wrote:
Vivinski wrote:
Here's a great idea, don't worry so much about other peoples lives
Problem = solved
Love the Dutch, live and let live!! I agree Vivinski.
Live and let live? Ahem, Don't the Dutch lead the world in euthansia?
Oct 30, 2012
0
#127
frank124c wrote:
Nobody ever mentions this but when someone is thrown out of his home due to inability to pay his mortgage, what happens to him? He becomes a ward of the state, he has to collect welfare and since welfare doesn't pay enough to live on he may turn to crime and wind up in jail. It costs a lot of money to keep someone in jail! At the risk of sounding stupid, who were Cabrera and Fielder?
The book Freakonomics says it costs about $25k a year to incarcerate a person.
Cabrera and Fielder are baseball players.
Ziryab wrote:
MisterBoneman wrote:
_IronButterfly_ wrote:
writerdeman wrote:
This is just a comment, take it or leave it. I think we've come to an incredibly sad place when with all our national debt we even have to discuss a liberal course. We need a hell of a strong dose of conservatism--that means not spending what we--not what we have, mind you, but what we borrowed. Honestly. Windmills are not going to save us at this point. You may not like Romney--I don't know why--but his record does show that he knows how to balance an account. Put aside your sneers long enough to save the country. Then you can go back to politics when we are not in imminent danger of watching our children becoming swiftly enslaved by oppressive nations. There has never been a better time to be a conservative--even if you're a liberal.
I second that!
The LAST conservative to serve as President was President Eisnhower, and the rest of the gop downplayed his work altogether.
Pardon, but, people kept whining that the Democrats and Liberals were always pointing at Bush junior and blaming him is only part of the problem. The full extent of that problem is that our children's children's children will be paying back for his terrible policies and lies. AND also Reagan's terrible policies.
Romney would LOVE to win, because he would blame President Obama, and then blame bush junior and President Clinton, and then President Bush, and probably skip over Reagan because that clown has good press spinners.
But the goptp (and the tea party, too) have done nothing but be a stumbling block in front of everything President Obama has wanted. That was the plan from tyhe start. Blame Obama.
Meanwhile, mid term, the goptp (and the tea party, too_) all said "Vote me in, we'll get those jobs for you!" and they had ONE flop. The pipeline (the same as the one China ran from the North of their country to the busier areas of their nation...only it exploded. They are still cleaning it. The thought is it will take them up to ten years to fifnish cleaning it up, and even then, the land will NOT be usable for many things. Crops, to begin with.
So, Canada wanted to run their pipeline to our Gulf ports. Not to sell to us, specifically. But to sell internationally. Matters not. It wuld have been about 2000 people hired temporarily, and after construction, only about two hundred at the most would be needed to maintain the pipes (until they explode, that is. Then we get to see Tennessee coal ash spill all over again, only with petroleum.
But, no jobs of any import or permanence came from the goptp (and the tea party, too) and instead, now a steady drumming to put women in their place, end their rights altogether, make marijuana MORE illegal than it already is, continue letting corporations be "people", and continue the war at all costs.
There are NO positive points to the goptp (or the tea party) and I, for one (a Republican) will be giddy as the last flush washes the lot of them out to sea, where they need to be. Preferably in an area of the ocean where sharks are plentiful. And hungry.
But, if i might be so curious...why the political lies in the middle of an article about smoking?
You're wrong. GOP policies create long-term jobs ... in environmental clean-up, in law enforcement, in the charities that serve the displaced and downtrodden.
I am missing he sarcasm, here. Long term jobs? Really? Oh...like WAR? Didn't want long term war, sir. Environmental clean up, I am so happy McCain didn't win, because those pack of bozos were serious about "drill, baby, drill. Now those two were absolute gems, but charities? It seems to me that th goptp (and the tea party) want to end ALL charities, including the government's. You know...social security. They want to end deductions for charities as well as control what charities help with. Certainly seems like planned parenthood is NOT on the list of those to get helped. All abortion clinics will of course be closed. Well, except one secret abortion clinic for goptp members (and tea party members) to have their mistresses go to in case of trouble.
Or have I misunderstood? You are being sarcastic, yes?
The gop hates our freedom, doesn't want anything except everything for themselves, and in general, will lie, cheat, steal, and walk in lock goose step in order to get their filthy lucre into their campaign chests (which they can take home with them should they not win.
I mean, what did YOU think Palin was doing? Running for President !? HA!
this is sarcasm
Oct 30, 2012
0
#130
corrijean wrote:
frank124c wrote:
Nobody ever mentions this but when someone is thrown out of his home due to inability to pay his mortgage, what happens to him? He becomes a ward of the state, he has to collect welfare and since welfare doesn't pay enough to live on he may turn to crime and wind up in jail. It costs a lot of money to keep someone in jail! At the risk of sounding stupid, who were Cabrera and Fielder?
The book Freakonomics says it costs about $25k a year to incarcerate a person.
Cabrera and Fielder are baseball players.
Wouldn't it be better to just give someone $25k a year to pay his mortgage rather than to incarcerate a person after he turns to a life of crime after not being able to make an honest living after being evicted from his home because he couldn't pay pay his mortgage? We're not jusst taking about one person here but entire families of maybe 4 or 5 people or more.
yes, but not on this planet.
Oct 30, 2012
0
#132
frank124c wrote:
corrijean wrote:
frank124c wrote:
Nobody ever mentions this but when someone is thrown out of his home due to inability to pay his mortgage, what happens to him? He becomes a ward of the state, he has to collect welfare and since welfare doesn't pay enough to live on he may turn to crime and wind up in jail. It costs a lot of money to keep someone in jail! At the risk of sounding stupid, who were Cabrera and Fielder?
The book Freakonomics says it costs about $25k a year to incarcerate a person.
Cabrera and Fielder are baseball players.
Wouldn't it be better to just give someone $25k a year to pay his mortgage rather than to incarcerate a person after he turns to a life of crime after not being able to make an honest living after being evicted from his home because he couldn't pay pay his mortgage? We're not jusst taking about one person here but entire families of maybe 4 or 5 people or more.
Personally, I am not in either the conservative or the liberal camp.
I really don't think your scenario is common (where common is defined in terms of: % of people who are arrested and sent to prison because they turned to crime due to their house being foreclosed on). Aside from that, I have a couple other arguments against your statement.
Banks are bending over backwards to avoid foreclosure because they usually end up losing a bundle if they have to foreclose.
A person who's house is foreclosed on has many choices other than crime, such as renting a smaller place they can actually afford.
The vast majority of criminals are not Jean Valjean. With the severity of prison overcrowding you have to do something pretty bad to get sent to prison for any length of time.
Where I live, unemployment benefits last for 63 weeks. Quite frankly, we are basically paying their mortgages already for a reasonable length of time. No need to throw an extra $25k a year at it.
If I lost my job, I'd be working any sort of job I could find regardless of whether or not it was "beneath" my education/experience level.
Bottom line, I do not think a *reasonable* person would turn to a life of crime because their house was foreclosed on.
Oct 30, 2012
0
#133
corrijean wrote:
frank124c wrote:
corrijean wrote:
frank124c wrote:
Nobody ever mentions this but when someone is thrown out of his home due to inability to pay his mortgage, what happens to him? He becomes a ward of the state, he has to collect welfare and since welfare doesn't pay enough to live on he may turn to crime and wind up in jail. It costs a lot of money to keep someone in jail! At the risk of sounding stupid, who were Cabrera and Fielder?
The book Freakonomics says it costs about $25k a year to incarcerate a person.
Cabrera and Fielder are baseball players.
Wouldn't it be better to just give someone $25k a year to pay his mortgage rather than to incarcerate a person after he turns to a life of crime after not being able to make an honest living after being evicted from his home because he couldn't pay pay his mortgage? We're not jusst taking about one person here but entire families of maybe 4 or 5 people or more.
Personally, I am not in either the conservative or the liberal camp.
I really don't think your scenario is common (where common is defined in terms of: % of people who are arrested and sent to prison because they turned to crime due to their house being foreclosed on). Aside from that, I have a couple other arguments against your statement.
Banks are bending over backwards to avoid foreclosure because they usually end up losing a bundle if they have to foreclose.
A person who's house is foreclosed on has many choices other than crime, such as renting a smaller place they can actually afford.
The vast majority of criminals are not Jean Valjean. With the severity of prison overcrowding you have to do something pretty bad to get sent to prison for any length of time.
Where I live, unemployment benefits last for 63 weeks. Quite frankly, we are basically paying their mortgages already for a reasonable length of time. No need to throw an extra $25k a year at it.
If I lost my job, I'd be working any sort of job I could find regardless of whether or not it was "beneath" my education/experience level.
Bottom line, I do not think a *reasonable* person would turn to a life of crime because their house was foreclosed on.
You say that if you lost your job you would take any job you could get to pay your mortgage but many people with college educations including recent graduates are looking for jobs and it is very hard to get a decent job nowadays. So you still have jobs available at McDonald's, they only pay minimum wage and are part time and this is not enough to pay a mortgage, not even enough to pay rent in most areas. Unemployment insurance and welfare are helpful but they run out and our Republican and Tea Party friends want to abolish this. But my idea was that since Uncle Obama is paying billions to the bank, instead of giviing this money to the banks give it to the people so they could use it to pay their mortgages. The banks will get the money anyway and the people will be given reasonable repayment plans. They say helping out poor people is socialism but what do you call it when you give billions to banks and large corporations? Are the Republicans against this?
Oct 30, 2012
0
#134
I am not a republican, so I don't think I'm an expert on what they are for and against. Perhaps you should ask one of them.
I don't think the money should have given to the banks, nor do I think it should be given to people unless it's in the form of not taking it from them in the first place.
Oct 30, 2012
0
#135
In Washington state, the average person pays 31.2% of their income in taxes.
That includes sales tax, payroll tax, property tax, income tax, etc.
Oct 30, 2012
0
#136
I live in a 900 square foot house because it is what I could afford. The bank offered me a bigger loan, but I decided to go small because my budget calculations showed me that a bigger loan would be too much of a stretch.
I really resent the idea of paying for someone's McMansion because they were too thoughtless and careless to do the same.
Oct 30, 2012
0
#137
Skull, You watch too many walking dead movies! lolo But good thinking!! hehehe
corrijean wrote:
I am not a republican, so I don't think I'm an expert on what they are for and against.
You, or anyone else, does not need to be an expert. But an informed decision is best. I've been involved in many debates that made me think.
Probably too deep for many here, but, I'm sure you know what I mean, cj!
Before this topic is locked, I would like to add that strict conservatives and liberals drive me nuts. Go somewhere else. Most people have similar views.
Debate can be constructive. Arguments are not.
This is just a comment, take it or leave it. I think we've come to an incredibly sad place when with all our national debt we even have to discuss a liberal course. We need a hell of a strong dose of conservatism--that means not spending what we--not what we have, mind you, but what we borrowed. Honestly. Windmills are not going to save us at this point. You may not like Romney--I don't know why--but his record does show that he knows how to balance an account. Put aside your sneers long enough to save the country. Then you can go back to politics when we are not in imminent danger of watching our children becoming swiftly enslaved by oppressive nations. There has never been a better time to be a conservative--even if you're a liberal.
I second that!
The LAST conservative to serve as President was President Eisnhower, and the rest of the gop downplayed his work altogether.
Pardon, but, people kept whining that the Democrats and Liberals were always pointing at Bush junior and blaming him is only part of the problem. The full extent of that problem is that our children's children's children will be paying back for his terrible policies and lies. AND also Reagan's terrible policies.
Romney would LOVE to win, because he would blame President Obama, and then blame bush junior and President Clinton, and then President Bush, and probably skip over Reagan because that clown has good press spinners.
But the goptp (and the tea party, too) have done nothing but be a stumbling block in front of everything President Obama has wanted. That was the plan from tyhe start. Blame Obama.
Meanwhile, mid term, the goptp (and the tea party, too_) all said "Vote me in, we'll get those jobs for you!" and they had ONE flop. The pipeline (the same as the one China ran from the North of their country to the busier areas of their nation...only it exploded. They are still cleaning it. The thought is it will take them up to ten years to fifnish cleaning it up, and even then, the land will NOT be usable for many things. Crops, to begin with.
So, Canada wanted to run their pipeline to our Gulf ports. Not to sell to us, specifically. But to sell internationally. Matters not. It wuld have been about 2000 people hired temporarily, and after construction, only about two hundred at the most would be needed to maintain the pipes (until they explode, that is. Then we get to see Tennessee coal ash spill all over again, only with petroleum.
But, no jobs of any import or permanence came from the goptp (and the tea party, too) and instead, now a steady drumming to put women in their place, end their rights altogether, make marijuana MORE illegal than it already is, continue letting corporations be "people", and continue the war at all costs.
There are NO positive points to the goptp (or the tea party) and I, for one (a Republican) will be giddy as the last flush washes the lot of them out to sea, where they need to be. Preferably in an area of the ocean where sharks are plentiful. And hungry.
But, if i might be so curious...why the political lies in the middle of an article about smoking?
You're wrong. GOP policies create long-term jobs ... in environmental clean-up, in law enforcement, in the charities that serve the displaced and downtrodden.