So the war on terror is being fought by the poor, eh?

[Variable]

If you've got the ability to perform a skill, even something small, chances are you won't be charging up a beachhead at a machine gun nest. But if you're dumb as a box of fucking rocks, rich or poor, your ass is gonna be in the first wave at Omaha beach.

So what you're saying is anybody who does something heroic in combat is

dumb as a box of fucking rocks

, right?

Brilliant analysis, dumbfuck. Using that same line of thought, anyone who does something cowardly in combat is "smart as a whip." I guess some of those third-trimester wire coathanger marks mommy left on your forehead reached a little deeper than we thought.

[Mister Bushice]

Anyway, my point wasn't that smart people aren't expendable, but that if you've got a job that involves your brain and not just carrying a rifle on your shoulder, you're much less likely to be in harm's way.

You're still wrong. A stupid soldier is a liability. Granted you don't need to be a rocket scientist to serve in the infantry, but you need to be able to think on your feet. I've met a lot of very sharp motherfuckers in the infantry.

Funny how nobody has mentioned the officers who lead these soldiers into battle. I guess their backgrounds and education don't count, right?

Forward he cried, from the rear, and the front rank died.
The generals sat, and the lines on the map, moved from side to side.

[DrDetroit]

B, can you be anymore dishonest?? The Democrats have nenver put forth the argument that the war is being fought by the poor and the middle class for the benefit of the rich.

Dude, if you're simply going to lie, why bother posting?

The argument that the Democrats have put forth is that fighting the war is being disproportionately shouldered by the poor. Don't fucking lie and change the tune after facts demonstrate that the argument is bunk.

[Cuda]

Babshice reads The New Republic

[Mister Bushice]

I don't remember that album. Was that before or after Dark side of the moon?

[Cuda]

If you've got the ability to perform a skill, even something small, chances are you won't be charging up a beachhead at a machine gun nest. But if you're dumb as a box of fucking rocks, rich or poor, your ass is gonna be in the first wave at Omaha beach.

So what you're saying is anybody who does something heroic in combat is

dumb as a box of fucking rocks

, right?

Brilliant analysis, dumbfuck.

Yes, it is

Using that same line of thought,

Your line of thought, btw

anyone who does something cowardly in combat is "smart as a whip." I guess some of those third-trimester wire coathanger marks mommy left on your forehead reached a little deeper than we thought.

They're your words, fuckstubble, not mine.

I'm just trying to get a handle on what you're trying to say.

So not only do you seem to be saying that Combat heros are stupid, you also appear to believe- using the same line of thought you expressed earlier- that cowards are smart (again, your words, not mine).

[Variable]

Funny how nobody has mentioned the officers who lead these soldiers into battle. I guess their backgrounds and education don't count, right?

Forward he cried, from the rear, and the front rank died.
The generals sat, and the lines on the map, moved from side to side.

What the fuck do you know about it?

Word. Uh, Bushice? It's hard for the generals to strategicaly execute a battle when they take four in the chest charging a bunker.

You're still wrong. A stupid soldier is a liability. Granted you don't need to be a rocket scientist to serve in the infantry, but you need to be able to think on your feet. I've met a lot of very sharp motherfuckers in the infantry.

You don't have to agree with me. I'm speaking from personal experience. I was stationed on an amphibious aircraft carrier that had a complement of 2000 marines while on deployment. While there were plenty of sharp guys in the group, most of them were below average in the smarts department.

[Mister Bushice]

Forward he cried, from the rear, and the front rank died.
The generals sat, and the lines on the map, moved from side to side.

What the fuck do you know about it?

Word. Uh, Bushice? It's hard for the generals to strategicaly execute a battle when they take four in the chest charging a bunker.

Why do you hate Pink Floyd references?

[Cuda]

I was stationed on an amphibious aircraft carrier

You sure it wasn't a Soviet Flying Atomic Sub?

[Variable]

So what you're saying is anybody who does something heroic in combat is

dumb as a box of fucking rocks

, right?

Brilliant analysis, dumbfuck.

Yes, it is

Maybe if you've spent all day in a freshly painted closet with the door shut.

Using that same line of thought,

Your line of thought, btw

No, a few words of mine that you conveniently deposited around words of yours, to play fun with context.

anyone who does something cowardly in combat is "smart as a whip." I guess some of those third-trimester wire coathanger marks mommy left on your forehead reached a little deeper than we thought.

They're your words, fuckstubble, not mine.

"Dumb as a box of rocks" is mine. The rest is yours. Been watching too many episodes of JAG again? This is one of the worst examples of cross examination by selective cut-n-paste that I've seen in a loooong time.

I'm just trying to get a handle on what you're trying to say.

Well let me give you a hint, Slappy. It ain't that "war heroes are stupid." Let me give you another hint... Having an extra chromosome doesn't mean that you have bode on the rest of us. It makes you retarded. If you don't understand the concept that grunts make up the first wave of an ampibious attack, then mix in some reading that doesn't end with "Name/address withheld by request".

So not only do you seem to be saying that Combat heros are stupid, you also appear to believe- using the same line of thought you expressed earlier- that cowards are smart (again, your words, not mine).

Thanks for that, Matlock. Are you going to declare me a hostile witness?

[Cuda]

No, I'm going to declare you a ubb code illiterate

[JHawkBCD]

UBB CODE SMACK! BODE CUDA!!!

: meds :

[Variable]

No, I'm going to declare you a ubb code illiterate

Already fixed. Nice 78 MPH fastball you've got there.

I was stationed on an amphibious aircraft carrier

You sure it wasn't a Soviet Flying Atomic Sub?

<--------Pssst....not really.

[Cuda]

UBB CODE SMACK! BODE CUDA!!!

: meds :

You're still intoxicated by the ass kicking Kansas laid on the Corn.

Here's a hint for you: Beating Nebraska isn't that big a deal these days.

Oh, wait... for Kansas, beating anybody is a big deal, isn't it?

Still, it was only Nebraska.

[JHawkBCD]

Nah, I'm just watching an equally amusing ass-kicking.

[BSmack]

B, can you be anymore dishonest?? The Democrats have nenver put forth the argument that the war is being fought by the poor and the middle class for the benefit of the rich. The argument that the Democrats have put forth is that fighting the war is being disproportionately shouldered by the poor. Don't fucking lie and change the tune after facts demonstrate that the argument is bunk.

You still trying to spin that 50k for a family is somehow "middle class"?

That's working out about as well as the west coast offense for you.

[DrDetroit]

Yes, $50k ismiddle fucking class, idiot.

[DrDetroit]

Income threshholds for percentile size -- 2003

Top 80% - $10,792
Top 60% - $22,060
Top 40% - $37,243
Top 20% - $66,103

$50K is solidly middle class, asshat. To listen to you pieces of shit, middle class is $100,000. Fuck off. Your class warfare rhetoric and demeaning and arrogant attitudes just ain't selling no more.

[BSmack]

Middle class means you can afford what middle class people used to be able to afford. Not what noted ghetto economist Dr. Detard thinks middle class people should be able to afford now. And 50k ain't going to cut it.

You don't get it. This county is becoming poorer by the minute. Our money is worth less and our wages are rising slower than the cost of living.

End of fucking story.

[DrDetroit]

1) I proved last week that for the last fifteen years wages have been increasing more slowly than cost of living. It's a fundamental fact of this economy and will always be. It's funny how this is only a problem when there's a Republican in office, :roll: .

2) Middle class means you can afford what middle class people used to be able to afford...ok, I agree.

You agree that housing prices are way up, increasing every year, right? Yet, home ownership is at an all-time high.

Of the 90% of those classifed as "poor" how many own homes, cars, major applicances, etc.? Seems to me that the "poor" can even afford what used to be bought on a $50K/year income, B.

Nice job kicking your ass, dumbshit.

Yeah, America is getting so poor...

You know, after five years of this bullshit you'd think Democrats would abandon this tactic of demonizing the economy when none of the forecasts of doom and gloom fail to come true.

Recall that the budget deficit was going ratchet up interest rates. The national debt was going to bankrupt this country. Unemployment was skyrocketing.

Bwahahahhahahaaaaaa!!!

Why doesn't the media ever follow up on the empty economic predictions of gloom and doom??

[BSmack]

You have got to love when contradiction flies in the face of the Dittotard.

For example...

1) I proved last week that for the last fifteen years wages have been increasing more slowly than cost of living. It's a fundamental fact of this economy and will always be. It's funny how this is only a problem when there's a Republican in office, :roll: .

AND

2) Middle class means you can afford what middle class people used to be able to afford...ok, I agree. You agree that housing prices are way up, increasing every year, right? Yet, home ownership is at an all-time high.

Obviously it hasn't occurred to this twat that if wages are going down and home ownership is going UP, that either the quality of said homes has to be going down or the amount of debt being borne by the homeowner has gone up.

[DrDetroit]

B, look, your assertion that $50K is not middle class is simply wrong. As I have demonstrated with data, you are wrong. So keep coming with your empty pronouncements of what middle class is. That's all you have.

The fact is that a very high % of the "poor" own homes. How that is not affording what was once affordable is beyond me.

So keep on with the empty assertions and equally empty rhetoric.

[DrDetroit]

Oh, btw...it still remains a fact that the poor are not disproportionately shouldering the war on terrorism.

[BSmack]

B, look, your assertion that $50K is not middle class is simply wrong.

Why do you continue to ignore the difference between family income and individual income?

[DrDetroit]

I'm not and it's irrelevant anyway. I have yet to see you actually demonstrate your point by providing any data to prove your assertions.

Well...?

So stake your claim, dolt. What is a middle class family income?

BTW - the point still stands...the poor does not shoulder a disproprotionate burden of the war on terrorism.

[BSmack]

I'm not and it's irrelevant anyway.

Since when is the difference between supporting 4 people on 50k and supporting 1 irrelevant ot the purchasing power of said 50k?

[DrDetroit]

The purchasing power of $50K is not in dispute. It's a canard employed to divert from the real issue -- that the poor are not disproportionately shouldering the burden of the war on terror.

A $50K household is not a "poor" one.

Also, when 90% of those classified as "poor" own homes, multiple vehicles, major appliances, well, they are not poor.

[OCmike]

Also, when 90% of those classified as "poor" own homes, multiple vehicles, major appliances, well, they are not poor.

True, "poor" is a relative term, especially when you consider that a poor person in America would be considered "middle class" or better in about half of the countries around the world.

How about if both of you just agree that "middle class" is a subjective term before your keyboards start glowing orange?

[DrDetroit]

Oh, I've already tried that, but B will not have of it.

[BSmack]

True, "poor" is a relative term, especially when you consider that a poor person in America would be considered "middle class" or better in about half of the countries around the world.

Your average crackhead has a higher standard of living than 16th century royalty. That doesn't mean we should compare ourselves with people who live in huts just to make ourselves feel better about our increasingly poorer economic position.

How about if both of you just agree that "middle class" is a subjective term before your keyboards start glowing orange?

No Cheetos here. Whatchu talkin bout Willis?

[OCmike]

Your average crackhead has a higher standard of living than 16th century royalty. That doesn't mean we should compare ourselves with people who live in huts just to make ourselves feel better about our increasingly poorer economic position.

Point being, "poor" is different depending on where you're at, whether in the US or abroad.

No Cheetos here. Whatchu talkin bout Willis?

You're typing so much your keyboard is about to overheat. Anyway, *I* knew what I meant.

[Mikey]

Also, when 90% of those classified as "poor" own homes, multiple vehicles, major appliances, well, they are not poor.

I'd sure like to see you back that one up.



Won't hold my breath, though.

[DrDetroit]

I already did, I cited a 2003 Census Bureau report, dummy. Didn't you read this thread?

[Mikey]

I already did, I cited a 2003 Census Bureau report, dummy. Didn't you read this thread?

Oh, OK, you must mean this one...

According to a 2003 Census report --
91 percent of those in the lowest 10 percent of households -- all of whom are officially poor --
own color TVs;
74 percent own microwave ovens;
55 percent own VCRs;
47 percent own clothes dryers;
42 percent own stereos;
23 percent own dishwashers;
21 percent own computers; and
19 percent own garbage disposals.

I guess those poor people are all buying 50" color TVs and living in them?



I'm not sure that counts as homeownership though, "dummy".

According to the Census Bureau the national homeownership rate is about 69%. I guess that means the that the poor own their own homes at a much higher rate than the rest of the country.

Ponderous.

BTW, I don't see any "multiple vehicles" in there either. Am I looking at the wrong data? Or are you just lying as usual.

[Mikey]

I guess the poor ones are getting killed off.

[DrDetroit]

So, Mikey, rather than addressing the point being made, you decide to grossly mischaracterize it...as usual.

I'm not sure that counts as homeownership though, "dummy".

You're not sure what counts as home ownership? Owning tv's? Who suggested it did?

I simply cited a Census Bureau report that indicated that 90% of those classified as "poor" own these things.

According to the Census Bureau the national homeownership rate is about 69%. I guess that means the that the poor own their own homes at a much higher rate than the rest of the country.

Read a little close, then.

90% of those called poor own these yhings called homes, tv's, major applicances, etc.

[DrDetroit]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9315538

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.

* Seventy-six per cent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6% of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

[BSmack]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9315538

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.

I did a search here in Rochester. You can find 102 3 bedroom 1+ bath houses in the Rochester area for 20k or less.

Now, would you want to LIVE in one of those houses?

[Mikey]

So, Mikey, rather than addressing the point being made, you decide to grossly mischaracterize it...as usual.

I'm not sure that counts as homeownership though, "dummy".

You're not sure what counts as home ownership? Owning tv's? Who suggested it did?

I simply cited a Census Bureau report that indicated that 90% of those classified as "poor" own these things.

According to the Census Bureau the national homeownership rate is about 69%. I guess that means the that the poor own their own homes at a much higher rate than the rest of the country.

Read a little close, then.

90% of those called poor own these yhings called homes, tv's, major applicances, etc.

Read what you yourself wrote a little more closely, idiot.

1. Your Census report does not even mention homeownership.
2. You claimed that the report showed, and I'm quoting you here, "90% of those classified as "poor" own homes."
3. The only only category in your citation that even comes close to 90% color TVs.
4. Thus, the only conclusion to be drawn from your little exercise in obfuscation is that you think that owning a color TV is equivalent to owning a home.
5. It still doesn't mention owning "multiple vehicles", you stupid fucking moron.
6. If you going to try and cite a report, at least try to get it right and stop lying.