Boring
Rob Sheppard
some excitement happening. Who's up for a row? Brenda? Carter?
Glomis
> Man, this place is boring. I need to start a racket with someone just to
> get some excitement happening. Who's up for a row? Brenda? Carter?
How about me...ummm....ummm.... "Rob Sheppard"...pshawwww...what kind of
crazy name is that???
Ok..fair enough...poor excuse for a racket..
:-)
Omnipotus
posting to, and rarely worth reading. But if you want to start a racket,
feel free to discuss any of the following topics all of which annoy me.
1. People with white hair, driving.
2. The constant coverage on the news of Kate Moss' cocaine addiction.
3. Being pro-life.
4. Creationists, or those that believe in intelligent design.
5. The ingenious entrepreneur (what is the sign for sarcasm?), who started,
and subsequently trademarked, bumvertising.
6. Martha Stewart and/or Oprah Winfrey.
7. The fact that some people's pets get pedicures and wear thousands of
dollars of dog and cat jewelry even though there are people in the world
that are starving to death.
8. Buying bottled water even though you live in Newfoundland.
9. People who believe that smoking has no ill effects.
10. People with white hair, driving.
If you don't want to argue any of these with me, then you could probably
just spell poorly and draw out Carter.
Omnipotus
"Rob Sheppard" <robsh...@spam.me.not.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rhi1f.98035$oW2.33162@pd7tw1no...
Janye
dollars of dog and cat jewelry even though there are people in the world
that are starving to death.
This one annoys me to no end. Some people cannot afford to even have
shelter, and yet, Tinkerbell gets Prada?!?
I know it is the way our society is structured, and don't get me wrong, I am
not in favor of communism (The idea itself has inherent issues, such as
motivation, like if a doctor and a janitor got paid the same, one requirs
years os study, the other requires a bucket, eveyone would be a janitor,
there is bound to be curroption, oh it goes on and onnn!)
I just think the rich should get heavier taxes and have the taxes evenly
distributed to the lower incomes (if they choose) and level the playing
field a bit more. I know there will always be the different levels of
income, but I believe it is just crazy how wide the socioeconomic gap is and
how much it is contuning to grow.
All spelled right there Cater? ;)
Janye
Jaffacakes
"Jayne" <ja...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:oUk1f.105318$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> 7. The fact that some people's pets get pedicures and wear thousands of
> dollars of dog and cat jewelry even though there are people in the world
> that are starving to death.
>
> This one annoys me to no end. Some people cannot afford to even have
> shelter, and yet, Tinkerbell gets Prada?!?
>
> I know it is the way our society is structured, and don't get me wrong, I
> am not in favor of communism (The idea itself has inherent issues, such as
> motivation, like if a doctor and a janitor got paid the same, one requirs
requires
> years os study, the other requires a bucket, eveyone would be a janitor,
of
> there is bound to be curroption, oh it goes on and onnn!)
corruption
> I just think the rich should get heavier taxes and have the taxes evenly
> distributed to the lower incomes (if they choose) and level the playing
> field a bit more. I know there will always be the different levels of
> income, but I believe it is just crazy how wide the socioeconomic gap is
> and
socio-economic
> how much it is contuning to grow.
continuing
> All spelled right there Cater? ;)
> Jayne
a for effort though jayne. one day you will get their.
--
"You gotta be smarter than your oponant."
---- Big Dumb Dave. (bigdum...@yahoo.com)
"Members of the 3rd right (Nazi/facist)?"
---- Scotty a.k.a. mr. third right. (clueless...@canada.com)
.--------------------------------------.
( BAHHHH! KATO is an friend too )
( my rear end BAHHHHH! )
`--------------------------------------'
, ,/
O@O
@ @@@
@@@@@
@@@@@
|| ||
>
>
Rob Sheppard
"Glomis" <Glo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hqKdnUidgrF...@rogers.com...
Rob Sheppard
LOL
"Janye" <ja...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:oUk1f.105318$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
dd-east
"Rob Sheppard" <robsh...@spam.me.not.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rhi1f.98035$oW2.33162@pd7tw1no...
> get some excitement happening. Who's up for a row? Brenda? Carter?
ya and the Leafs will win the cup this year.
DaveHX
"dd-east" <sp...@nl.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:z4KdnVMLPsb...@rogers.com...
ginn
aliant. NAPE is never going to be the same without Leo Puddister. Danny
Williams is a self centered tool thats is going to ruin this province.
Stopped Down View
"ginn" <gbr...@nospam.nl.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:meadnRSxyKERxNve...@rogers.com...
Stormlady
"Janye" <ja...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:oUk1f.105318$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> distributed to the lower incomes (if they choose) and level the playing
> field a bit more. I know there will always be the different levels of
> income, but I believe it is just crazy how wide the socioeconomic gap is
and
> how much it is contuning to grow.
>
But people who make more money do pay higher taxes. I can't remember the
brackets right now, but the more money you make the higher tax bracket you
are in for income tax.
Omnipotus
"Himself" <Him...@warp.nfld.net> wrote in message
news:sjnck1pt6ev94c66n...@4ax.com...
> "Janye" <ja...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>This one annoys me to no end. Some people cannot afford to even have
>>shelter, and yet, Tinkerbell gets Prada?!?
>
> that if you make money you have to give it away to strangers?
No rule at all. Do you require rules for everything that you do or think?
> Everybody indulges themselves, you don't have to be rich to do
> that. It is just as disgusting to see a single mom on welfare
> buying cigarettes and beer while their kids are wearing the same
> clothes all week long. But you don't have to approve everybody's
> lifestyle, it's none of your business.
It is not the point of approving of someone's lifestyle. Yes, people should
be free to do what they want their money. I am not blaming the individual.
God knows I indulge myself in mindless material things. We all do in this
culture. That is not the point. The point is that designer jewelry for
dogs should not exist in a world where people literally starve to death. Do
you think it fair that there are dogs that are treated better than human
beings in this world? I know there is no rule that says dogs can't be
treated better than humans, but why don't you think about it for a minute.
>>I just think the rich should get heavier taxes and have the taxes evenly
>>distributed to the lower incomes (if they choose) and level the playing
>>field a bit more.
>
> Why? All that is doing is pissing off people that have managed to
> make a dollar. They would be in a real charitable mood then, for
> sure. What's the government going to do? Give more handouts to
> people that don't want to work?
I know it is easy to assume that all the people that receive welfare simply
choose not to work and that they live a lax lifestyle whilst they wait for
their check so they go buy caviar and wine with all their riches. Of course
there are people who abuse the system. It is not perfect in that way, but
that doesn't mean people should be starving. I wasn't even referring to
people in this country starving to death, although I'm sure it happens. As
far as our country goes, we as individuals have a right to subsist at a
certain level. That is a right, just as adequate food and shelter should be
a right. No one is suggesting that we should all live with exactly the same
amount of money and exactly the same number of material possessions, but the
poor in this country have a right to have at least their basic needs met.
We shouldn't even have things like food banks because even though they serve
a function, they allow the government to shirk responsibility to those that
run and donate to these charities. People should never have to dig through
sani-care bins to get food.
>What services does the government
> provide that is worth half of what you make anyway? And why
> should they cost more if you happen to have more money than
> someone else? Would you think it fair that it cost you a dollar
> for a loaf of bread while it cost $10 for someone else? Same
> idea.
That is not the same idea at all, at least not with what I am saying. Do
you think it fair that some people cannot buy a loaf of bread at all? I am
sure you could justify it as laziness or lack of ambition or so on or so on,
but the problem still exists. You're comparing price points of bread to the
use of taxes for government services? Good job. You are essentially right
though, it isn't your problem, it isn't my problem, and it definitely isn't
Paris Hilton's dog's problem, and that is exactly why there won't be a
solution.
Omnipotus
> :)
Yes, smile, be happy, you don't have to eat out of a garbage can (Do you
think that would make a good fortune cookie message?).
Omnipotus
> "Omnipotus" <omni...@roadrunner.nf.net> wrote:
>> The point is that designer jewelry for
>>dogs should not exist in a world where people literally starve to death.
>
> world where people starve to death then either. They are all
> luxuries compared to having the basics. Do away with them all,
> then all the starving people in the world will have something to
> eat! Or would they? Whether Paris Hilton puts jewelry on her dog
> or gets her toes covered in gold paint, or buys 20 cars, what's
> the difference? It's her money, rather foolish way to spend it in
> my opinion, but then again she IS a ho.. lol
You're right, of course, although that is not what you said originally. My
point is not that we have material possessions. The systems that have made
us materialists have been remarkably successful. We all live like kings and
queens compared to some people in the world, no matter how we rate ourselves
in comparison to others in our own country. I am not mad at Paris Hilton
for buying her dog jewelry. I am mad at the fact that there are dogs
treated better than humans anywhere in the world. I was not in anyway
suggesting that if we didn't have dog jewelry we wouldn't have humans
starving. It just seems like one step too far.
>>That is not the same idea at all, at least not with what I am saying. Do
>>you think it fair that some people cannot buy a loaf of bread at all?
>
> Do you really think fairness has anything to do with living in
> this world? :)
No I don't, but I do think it is possible to try to make it more equitable
for those that are already at a disadvantage.
> If two people are given free public education, opportunity for
> government sponsored loans, one does well and the other ends up
> on welfare or working at Walmart, what isn't fair about that? Of
> course, it's more often the case that the people that do well
> have rich parents, make a mistake and daddy or mommy bails your
> out, but that is life. :)
Yes, in a way captialism can be more strict than castes. It is very
difficult for people to escape the economic strata into which they were
born. So your example of rich parents bailing out their child is an apt
one. But consider the converse side where people who get in trouble don't
have parents that are rich enough to bail them out, where one mistake can
affect their whole life. Now, I am not suggesting that the poor person be
given a free ride and that everyone should be rich. That is absurd. But
shouldn't we acknowledge those that are born disadvantaged just as much as
we all acknowledge those that are born into richness. Why is it that when
someone is on welfare we say they don't want to work, that they are lazy?
Is it because it is true, or is it because it is easier to blame the person
than to deal with the problem?
> What isn't fair is someone that has made some money to have to
> pay more for government services than someone else. Whole point
> of medicare, you know? Everybody is the same. Everybody pays the
> same sales tax, cost of food is the same, doesn't cost more for
> gas depending on your bank account balance. So what is up with
> income tax? Suddenly, we aren't all equal anymore, let's rob from
> the rich and give to the poor. :)
They can afford it.
> If you were interested in fairness that is, like I said, it's not
> part of living in this world in my experience. :)
I am not interested in fairness. There is no way we could have fairness in
a society based on entrenched inequality. But as you already said, some
people are born rich, but so many more are born poor, and I am not talking
about the kind of poor where you can only afford a Playstation One. I am
talking about starving, homeless people. In the level of society we have
attained these conditions should not exist, the fact that they do does not
mean they always should.
>>Yes, smile, be happy, you don't have to eat out of a garbage can (Do you
>>think that would make a good fortune cookie message?).
> If it were in a garbage can, sure. :)
Ha.
> I put the smiley in there,
> because I was being deliberately provocative, in keeping with the
> desire to have a debate out of boredom. :)
The use of a colon and a parenthesis to make a crude smiley face is you
being provocative? You really know how to excite the masses.
Omnipotus