Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

HP Inc. Message Board

vt_investor 263 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 24, 2016 10:18 AM Member since: Apr 29, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Why liberal Republicans?

    by vt_investor Mar 3, 2016 12:10 AM
    vt_investor vt_investor Mar 4, 2016 10:28 AM Flag

    Read what I wrote, again. The Internet had absolutely nothing to do with the USSR running out of funds, and their economic collapse.

  • vt_investor vt_investor Mar 3, 2016 3:47 PM Flag

    Just to keep it real:

    "In 1979, the top one percenters earned 8.9 percent of pretax income and paid 18 percent of federal income taxes. In 2011, the top 1 percent earned 14.6 percent of income and paid 25.4 percent in 2011 of federal income taxes."

    According to Robert Frank writing for CNBC.

  • vt_investor vt_investor Mar 3, 2016 3:40 PM Flag

    We do not all pay sales tax!

  • vt_investor vt_investor Mar 3, 2016 2:22 PM Flag

    I though you said you wanted them to "start kicking something into the pot"? Now, not really??

  • vt_investor vt_investor Mar 3, 2016 2:13 PM Flag

    "How about the 44% who pay ZERO start kicking into the pot?"

    You could do that. All you need to do is to make sure that tax rates are raised enough to be sure they pay something. Simple, really!

  • Reply to

    Why liberal Republicans?

    by vt_investor Mar 3, 2016 12:10 AM
    vt_investor vt_investor Mar 3, 2016 12:56 PM Flag

    The Soviets had been bankrupting themselves for decades. In addition, the spreading use of the Internet made it possible for citizens to communicate quickly before the generals and political leaders could figure out what was happening. Reagan was just luck to be the guy in charge here when this finally happened.

  • Reply to

    Why liberal Republicans?

    by vt_investor Mar 3, 2016 12:10 AM
    vt_investor vt_investor Mar 3, 2016 12:20 PM Flag

    I agree on both counts. Reagan was masterful in the way he allowed the Soviet Union to collapse, while making sure that we remained nonthreatening, and that no missiles were launched and fighting was almost non-existent. Reagan did a good job protecting us - and the rest of the world - then, but he still did little to construct future infrastructure of legal protections that remain as the others did. In addition Reagan was the first of a string of presidents who each oversaw the doubling of our national debt, which was certainly not a good thing to leave for future generations. For these reasons, I would not include Reagan quite in the same class as Lincoln, Eisenhower, or Nixon.

  • vt_investor by vt_investor Mar 3, 2016 12:10 AM Flag

    Why are the liberal, progressive Republicans the only Republicans we remember? Why are liberal, progressive Republicans the only Republicans who have done anything of national and historical value?

    Liberal Progressive Republican Abe Lincoln freed the slaves and kept our nation together.

    Liberal, Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt broke up a few dozen "too big to fail" corporate trusts, including railroads and beef packers. He doubled the number of national parks, created many national monuments, including the Grand Canyon. And he strengthened our navy to be the strongest navy in the world, at the time. He also started construction of the Panama Canal.

    Liberal, Progressive Republican Dwight Eisenhower invested in technical research and development that resulted in the Internet and GPS, among other things, eventually. He also began the construction of the interstate highway system than now ties our nation together.

    It seems that only the liberal, progressive Republicans have thought much about the future or done much that strengthened our nation in ways that we now respect and remember.

  • Reply to

    Where are they headed?

    by vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 12:41 AM
    vt_investor vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 2:21 PM Flag

    Good afternoon, Langosta! I hope you day is great. Are you now north or south? In any case, I wish you warm and sunny times.

    You make a lot of sense here. But, people will also need to decide whether Trump is pro life, or pro abortion. Whether he is pro sending illegals home, or keeping them to work on his job sites. Whether Trump is for or against the First amendment freedom of religion. Whether Trump is for or against Obamacare. Whether Trump supports Planned Parenthood, or not. Whether Trump is for spending another couple of trillion dollars on a war in the Middle East, or not. A lot of people don't seem to care right now, but perhaps as the election approaches, more and more people will begin to think about those issues, again. It might affect their pocketbooks a lot!

  • Reply to

    Where are they headed?

    by vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 12:41 AM
    vt_investor vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 2:10 PM Flag

    We agree! I hope you are having a fine day, WH. I'm headed out to start work in the gardens.

  • Reply to

    Where are they headed?

    by vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 12:41 AM
    vt_investor vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 2:07 PM Flag

    Hmm. Perhaps you were not paying attention, but Mr. Biden already said he's not interested in the job. But to answer your question about "Who", there were some exit polls that showed that as many as 3/4 of those who voted for Cruz, Rubio, etc said they would never vote for Trump, and either stay home or hold their noses and vote for Clinton.

    I have no idea what may happen. This is already too strange to even begin to figure out what will happen over the next few months. I pray that some rationality may eventually prevail, and we eventually find someone who has at least read the Constitution and understands basic logic, but I'm not holding my breath right now.

  • vt_investor vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 1:53 PM Flag

    " all people were declared to be "natural born citizens" at adoption of the Constitution"

    Who did that? And if that really happened, then why did the founding fathers add that additional exception into the Constitution? So you now agree with Springer that anyone born in Canada is also a "natural born citizen"?

  • Reply to

    Where are they headed?

    by vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 12:41 AM
    vt_investor vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 11:25 AM Flag

    So are you saying that a company who builds a car in the US and sells it in Europe should pay no taxes on the profits they make on that car, but they should pay taxes on every car they both build and sell in the US? Or are you saying that a US car company who has a factory in eh UK should pay a US tax when they sell that car in the UK.

  • vt_investor vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 10:18 AM Flag

    So, as the British colonies at the time included the United States, and Canada, as well as a few Caribbean islands that are also considered part of North America, then your position is still that anyone born in Canada, or Caribbean islands such as Jamaica and the Bahamas is a natural born citizen and can be a US president?

  • Reply to

    Where are they headed?

    by vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 12:41 AM
    vt_investor vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 10:11 AM Flag

    In November, delegates mean nothing. If he's backed by just 1/3 or even 1/2 of Republicans, he will have a big problem in the electoral college.

  • Reply to

    Cruz A Naturalized Citizen, Cannot Be President

    by trueallday Mar 1, 2016 12:01 PM
    vt_investor vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 1:07 AM Flag

    The bottom line, as Springer so clearly stated,

    "No case was brought forward."
    QED!

  • vt_investor vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 1:01 AM Flag

    The founding fathers clearly didn't consider themselves "natural born citizens", otherwise they would not have included the additional special case to include themselves as being eligible for the presidency.

    If you really want to extend the definition of :"natural born citizen:" to anyone born in North America, than any citizen of Canada or Mexico born in North America could be the US president. Is that your position, now?

  • vt_investor by vt_investor Mar 2, 2016 12:41 AM Flag

    Where are today's Republicans headed? The headlines say that Trump won a sweeping victory. But when I see the vote totals in each state on the TV screen, Trump wins between 1/5 and 2/5 of the votes in each state. (There may have also been a 43%, but I never saw that number again.). That means that between 3/5 and 4/5 of today's Republicans want someone else (and some polls say that many of them would never vote for Trump).

    Does this mean that Trump can win the Republican nomination with little more than1/3 of the total Republican voters behind him? Or will the 2/3 of Republicans who oppose him finally get their act together and nominate someone else? A Republican candidate with just a third of Republicans behind him would have a very hard time in the November election.

    Whee are today's' Republicans headed?

  • vt_investor vt_investor Mar 1, 2016 5:18 PM Flag

    There was a special case written into the Constitution for Washington and others born before the Constitution was ratified. Washington was not a natural born citizen.

    "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, ..."

  • Reply to

    Cruz A Naturalized Citizen, Cannot Be President

    by trueallday Mar 1, 2016 12:01 PM
    vt_investor vt_investor Mar 1, 2016 1:10 PM Flag

    "No case was brought forward."

    Exactly what I said. No one had any reason or evidence to bring forward a case.

HPQ
12.27-0.30(-2.39%)Apr 29 4:01 PMEDT