- This topic has 450 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 29, 2008 at 10:05 PM #263667August 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM #263505
dharmagirl
ParticipantI wonder if Cindy is taking pain killers for that injured arm?
From Psychology Today:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/200806/mccain-and-cindy-drugsThe McCains have worked to make Cindy McCain’s addiction into a political asset-despite the fact that she stole the drugs from a charity she directed and used them while mothering four young children.
In 1994, Mrs. McCain admitted that she had solicited prescriptions for painkillers from physicians who worked for an international charity that she founded, the American Voluntary Medical Team. She then filled the prescriptions in the names of her staff.
With a $100 million fortune, I’m surprised she couldnt procure the drugs another way!
August 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM #263713ParticipantI wonder if Cindy is taking pain killers for that injured arm?
From Psychology Today:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/200806/mccain-and-cindy-drugsThe McCains have worked to make Cindy McCain’s addiction into a political asset-despite the fact that she stole the drugs from a charity she directed and used them while mothering four young children.
In 1994, Mrs. McCain admitted that she had solicited prescriptions for painkillers from physicians who worked for an international charity that she founded, the American Voluntary Medical Team. She then filled the prescriptions in the names of her staff.
With a $100 million fortune, I’m surprised she couldnt procure the drugs another way!
August 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM #263719ParticipantI wonder if Cindy is taking pain killers for that injured arm?
From Psychology Today:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/200806/mccain-and-cindy-drugsThe McCains have worked to make Cindy McCain’s addiction into a political asset-despite the fact that she stole the drugs from a charity she directed and used them while mothering four young children.
In 1994, Mrs. McCain admitted that she had solicited prescriptions for painkillers from physicians who worked for an international charity that she founded, the American Voluntary Medical Team. She then filled the prescriptions in the names of her staff.
With a $100 million fortune, I’m surprised she couldnt procure the drugs another way!
August 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM #263771ParticipantI wonder if Cindy is taking pain killers for that injured arm?
From Psychology Today:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/200806/mccain-and-cindy-drugsThe McCains have worked to make Cindy McCain’s addiction into a political asset-despite the fact that she stole the drugs from a charity she directed and used them while mothering four young children.
In 1994, Mrs. McCain admitted that she had solicited prescriptions for painkillers from physicians who worked for an international charity that she founded, the American Voluntary Medical Team. She then filled the prescriptions in the names of her staff.
With a $100 million fortune, I’m surprised she couldnt procure the drugs another way!
August 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM #263807ParticipantI wonder if Cindy is taking pain killers for that injured arm?
From Psychology Today:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/200806/mccain-and-cindy-drugsThe McCains have worked to make Cindy McCain’s addiction into a political asset-despite the fact that she stole the drugs from a charity she directed and used them while mothering four young children.
In 1994, Mrs. McCain admitted that she had solicited prescriptions for painkillers from physicians who worked for an international charity that she founded, the American Voluntary Medical Team. She then filled the prescriptions in the names of her staff.
With a $100 million fortune, I’m surprised she couldnt procure the drugs another way!
August 30, 2008 at 11:00 AM #263560gandalf
Participant[quote=PatentGuy]At least Obama wears his socialism on his sleeve.[/quote]
Hey PatentGuy, if Obama is a socialist, how come Wall Street polls put Obama ahead? Surveys of workers in NYC investment banks and financial firms prefer Obama. Are you suggesting Wall Street is ‘socialist’? Because that’s retarded.
The more likely explanation is that republican economic, fiscal, monetary and tax policies, as well as foreign policy — are BANKRUPTING the country.
A strong middle-class equals a strong economy. Nothing socialist about that. Wall Street investment bankers (past career for me) want to make money. They’re voting for sensible economic policy. And that isn’t republican anymore, bro’. Wake up and smell the coffee.
August 30, 2008 at 11:00 AM #263769Participant[quote=PatentGuy]At least Obama wears his socialism on his sleeve.[/quote]
Hey PatentGuy, if Obama is a socialist, how come Wall Street polls put Obama ahead? Surveys of workers in NYC investment banks and financial firms prefer Obama. Are you suggesting Wall Street is ‘socialist’? Because that’s retarded.
The more likely explanation is that republican economic, fiscal, monetary and tax policies, as well as foreign policy — are BANKRUPTING the country.
A strong middle-class equals a strong economy. Nothing socialist about that. Wall Street investment bankers (past career for me) want to make money. They’re voting for sensible economic policy. And that isn’t republican anymore, bro’. Wake up and smell the coffee.
August 30, 2008 at 11:00 AM #263773Participant[quote=PatentGuy]At least Obama wears his socialism on his sleeve.[/quote]
Hey PatentGuy, if Obama is a socialist, how come Wall Street polls put Obama ahead? Surveys of workers in NYC investment banks and financial firms prefer Obama. Are you suggesting Wall Street is ‘socialist’? Because that’s retarded.
The more likely explanation is that republican economic, fiscal, monetary and tax policies, as well as foreign policy — are BANKRUPTING the country.
A strong middle-class equals a strong economy. Nothing socialist about that. Wall Street investment bankers (past career for me) want to make money. They’re voting for sensible economic policy. And that isn’t republican anymore, bro’. Wake up and smell the coffee.
August 30, 2008 at 11:00 AM #263826Participant[quote=PatentGuy]At least Obama wears his socialism on his sleeve.[/quote]
Hey PatentGuy, if Obama is a socialist, how come Wall Street polls put Obama ahead? Surveys of workers in NYC investment banks and financial firms prefer Obama. Are you suggesting Wall Street is ‘socialist’? Because that’s retarded.
The more likely explanation is that republican economic, fiscal, monetary and tax policies, as well as foreign policy — are BANKRUPTING the country.
A strong middle-class equals a strong economy. Nothing socialist about that. Wall Street investment bankers (past career for me) want to make money. They’re voting for sensible economic policy. And that isn’t republican anymore, bro’. Wake up and smell the coffee.
August 30, 2008 at 11:00 AM #263862Participant[quote=PatentGuy]At least Obama wears his socialism on his sleeve.[/quote]
Hey PatentGuy, if Obama is a socialist, how come Wall Street polls put Obama ahead? Surveys of workers in NYC investment banks and financial firms prefer Obama. Are you suggesting Wall Street is ‘socialist’? Because that’s retarded.
The more likely explanation is that republican economic, fiscal, monetary and tax policies, as well as foreign policy — are BANKRUPTING the country.
A strong middle-class equals a strong economy. Nothing socialist about that. Wall Street investment bankers (past career for me) want to make money. They’re voting for sensible economic policy. And that isn’t republican anymore, bro’. Wake up and smell the coffee.
August 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM #263570ParticipantAnd on subject of taxation, discussions of fairness re: income tax are ridiculous.
Wealthy people don’t give a damn about income tax. They ‘earn’ through other means. It’s capgains, inheritance, other tax channels.
In principle, I’m for a flat tax on wealth. Everyone and everything — corporations, people, etc. — should pay a flat tax portion on their net worth each year. Everyone receives government services, everyone has to chip in according to their means.
Practicality of this approach seems next to impossible. Any ideas how this could be implemented?
BTW, I agree with you on social security PG. It’s long-term insolvent. We should be paying out based on need as a way to curb the structural imbalance ($$).
August 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM #263779ParticipantAnd on subject of taxation, discussions of fairness re: income tax are ridiculous.
Wealthy people don’t give a damn about income tax. They ‘earn’ through other means. It’s capgains, inheritance, other tax channels.
In principle, I’m for a flat tax on wealth. Everyone and everything — corporations, people, etc. — should pay a flat tax portion on their net worth each year. Everyone receives government services, everyone has to chip in according to their means.
Practicality of this approach seems next to impossible. Any ideas how this could be implemented?
BTW, I agree with you on social security PG. It’s long-term insolvent. We should be paying out based on need as a way to curb the structural imbalance ($$).
August 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM #263783ParticipantAnd on subject of taxation, discussions of fairness re: income tax are ridiculous.
Wealthy people don’t give a damn about income tax. They ‘earn’ through other means. It’s capgains, inheritance, other tax channels.
In principle, I’m for a flat tax on wealth. Everyone and everything — corporations, people, etc. — should pay a flat tax portion on their net worth each year. Everyone receives government services, everyone has to chip in according to their means.
Practicality of this approach seems next to impossible. Any ideas how this could be implemented?
BTW, I agree with you on social security PG. It’s long-term insolvent. We should be paying out based on need as a way to curb the structural imbalance ($$).
August 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM #263836ParticipantAnd on subject of taxation, discussions of fairness re: income tax are ridiculous.
Wealthy people don’t give a damn about income tax. They ‘earn’ through other means. It’s capgains, inheritance, other tax channels.
In principle, I’m for a flat tax on wealth. Everyone and everything — corporations, people, etc. — should pay a flat tax portion on their net worth each year. Everyone receives government services, everyone has to chip in according to their means.
Practicality of this approach seems next to impossible. Any ideas how this could be implemented?
BTW, I agree with you on social security PG. It’s long-term insolvent. We should be paying out based on need as a way to curb the structural imbalance ($$).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
