Jump to content

BigStewMan

Heritage Members
  • Posts

    16887
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    136

Everything posted by BigStewMan

  1. Michael, are you paying the fine or going to seatbelt school? Just joking, sorry you got that ticket. Siberian Khatru Baby!!! (whatever that means)
  2. it was much easier for me....While My Guitar Gently Weeps wins by a landslide.
  3. i feel the same way. it is a very sad day on the forum. I sure hope God chooses to perform a miracle here--i really miss talking to Rob.
  4. Happy Birthday Michael, Just curious, have you given any thought to what song, or what group will have the honor of being the first tune played in your workshop on it's Grand Opening? I've corresponded with you before, so it wouldn't surprise me the musicians were anderson, wakeman, squire, howe, and white. Come to think about...what about Siberian Khatru?
  5. Merry Christmas--last week i had to give myself my Christmas present--a new engine for my truck.
  6. Phenominal song! Whenever I had to do some housework, I always put on Siberian Khatru--for some reason, that song helped me get going. You're probably right though, it would still be a good show. I've seen Rick Wakeman without the rest of the guys and it was still a great show. http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/music/2008/11/03/7286346-sun.html just read this article about the tour. As a person with chronic asthma, i can understand how jon simply wouldn't be able to perform. there have been many a day that i could barely walk across the room. interesting note--they found this replacement singer on YouTube!
  7. i didn't know they were on tour either. they cancelled last year's north american tour because of jon's health, they were saying it was asthma back then. the report i read, the doctor had told him to take six-months off--i guess his recovery is slower than expected. i hope you enjoy the show--would be hard for me to buy tickets if jon and rick weren't there though. Yes is one of my favorites of all-time.
  8. Hi Tim--as a father of four, my heart hurts for what you endured. I stood with my brother as his only son was removed from life support. BUT, you really need to know that God IS in control. When your son died, it wasn't something you did or didn't do, and life hadn't spun out of God's control either. He had a reason for allowing that to happen, and although sometimes it's hard to accept, we don't always know or understand why. Perhaps, there could be some forum member reading this thread and pondering the weighty issues of life, death, and God; and i think it's pretty incredible to know that your son could have a positive impact on the lives of those that read this thread. Somebody could be ultimately end up with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that was sparked by this very conversation on this forum, and who knows how many people's lives that person will in turn influence. Try to take comfort in that my friend--We serve a good God and He does know what He's doing. Kindest regards, Steve
  9. Harry-- THANK YOU for passing our best wishes onto Rob. I don't know if he's able to read the forum or not; but, thanks for filling in the gap. He was the first forum member to invite me to his house (my wife dumped me after 26 years and rob offered to open up his home if i needed to get away for awhile) never got to take him up on that offer as I live on the southern california coast. But just knowing that our conversations on this forum are much more than just conversations with strangers. It is guys like Rob (and many others here) that make this a special place--I'd to say a Band of Brothers; but, that one has been used already.
  10. where's the committment? nobody is willing to quit their jobs or take their kids out of school (just think about it next year they'll be a year older and a year bigger than their classmates--a positive point for the child athlete). i think you should have it in God's Country--southern california, maybe every friday & saturday night too--with raffles.
  11. BigStewMan

    for Fini

    Well, I dated one so ugly that i would never leave her side just so I wouldn't have to kiss her goodbye.
  12. Helen Shapiro. apologies to the monty python flying circus
  13. Whenver I go to a stranger's house to demo some speakers, i strike my most intimidating martial arts pose and demo the speakers to the tune of Kung Fu Fighting. Works everytime.
  14. i can't prove this scientifically; however, i imagine that most voters are uninformed and by default vote for the incumbant. (i'm referring to their voting practice--you can tell by looking at who and what gets the most votes, that the voters are uninformed--that's enough scientific proof for me [:#])
  15. But voting records are public records, and not difficult for anyone to discover. And checking those records and voting is the tool for getting the truly shiftless and useless ones out. Very true. A few years back, when people were screaming for term limits, I like to use a line that a co-worker told me..."we already have term limits--it called ELECTIONS." Yes, it's a big paradox--dissatisfaction continually increases while the incumbants get reelected at an astronomical pace.
  16. Edmund, yeah, i'm sure it's a combination of both. i think the founding fathers gave us a good start; but, we've really turned it into a monster--and I don't know if we'll ever be able to reel it back in.
  17. Rob--if you're reading this, i hope it warms your heart to know that you have many friends here on this forum. I wish you well my friend. Steve
  18. don't you think that the political machine, the beast that it has become, for lack of a better phrase--corrupts those that enter with good intentions? many a person has been elected, claiming to and initially trying to buck the system, and has been shut down. soon they're playing the game just to get something done. not a fan of his; but arnold comes to mine here in california. he came in with his "there's a new sheriff in town" approach and couldn't do a thing. next thing we know, he's a full-fledged politician. I just wonder how many other people have been corrupted, sold out, or gave up? too bad we didn't stick to the representation ratio that the james madison intended when he wrote federalist paper 56 or 57 (can't recall which)--if memory serves correctly, it was 1/30,000 which he said would render the house of representatives safe from corruption and competent. he believed that ratio would lessen the corruption. today it something like one representative in the house for every 700,000 citizens. i know we couldn't afford it; but, if we had 7500 members of congress it sure would be harder for the lobbyists to "buy" them. Sadly, they capped the house numbers at 435--much easier to corrupt a sufficient number when you only have 435 to deal with. i think the old guy had this one right.
  19. Mdeneen--if you say it was rhetorical then i will believe you, and must offer an apology for jumping to a wrong conclusion. since the quote was one provided by me, i thought your response was directed at me. the dangers of assumptions and without being able to hear voice tone, makes things easy to misinterpret. Since I made a public statement, I owe you a public apology--and I do. Regards. Steve
  20. Well, I'm not a Bush fan, a Paulson fan, nor a JFK fan--so your assumption is as wrong as your long-winded argument. And, if I'm buying a car, as a customer, I don't care if the dealer is succeeding or not. But, if I'm one his staff members, I care a great deal--my job depends on his success. And as a business owner, I should make substantially more than my employees--I'm the one that has taken the risk. Every product that they lose or damage is money directly out of my pocket. The employee may be sorry; but, it isn't money out of their pocket--it's out of mine. If I'm the one with my financial neck on the line--my reward should be greater. i'm not at all excusing the near criminal greed and corruption displayed by many of the CEO's--that is inexcusable. by the way, i've read many of your post on a number of subjects, you really should learn to argue a point without name calling. if you so strongly believe that you right, and you are definately trying to portray yourself as an intelligent person, then you should be able to do that without using insults. It really takes the fun out of discussing stuff. I'm feeling the urge to sink to your level, so I'll take the high-road and bow out of this conversation.
  21. Okay, I should be back to work…but, couldn’t resist checking back in. Larry, I’m not an economist either. I’m not doubting what you said of JFK worrying about a budget surplus—I just haven’t heard that before. So, I will ask you what did he mean when he said this: Address and Question and Answer Period at the Economic Club of New York. December 14, 1962 In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus. I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.
  22. Oops, that history is not quite right. See Herbert Stein's Why JFK Cut Taxes.Kennedy foresaw a budget surplus and the economy didn't seem to be at "full employment," so he proposed the cut in 1961 to deal with what he thought would be a long-run drag on the economy. According to Stein, he actually wanted to expand the economy by changes in monetary policy, but was redirected to tax cuts by Congress. The Vietnam war wasn't a big burden on the economy until LBJ expanded it in earnest after JFK's death. We'll never know what JFK might have done about big war expenditures, although I've always thought he had too much wisdom to do an Asian land war. I do recall LBJ saying we could have both "guns and butter," though I don't think that turned out to be right. I assume you don't mean that JFK cut total FG revenues by 22%. Larry--I'll have to read that link tonight--still at work and checked the forum during lunch. I think my history is right. I wasn't meaning that JFK cut taxes to fund Vietnam--just that we were already invested there and he still cut taxes. What I referred to was that he lowered the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 70%. Same thing Reagan did, except when Reagan did it, it was called "trickle down." But, I'll take JFK's word for it (well, as best as one can take any politician's word for anything) when he said that "the soundest way to increase revenue in the long run is to cut the tax rate now."
  23. No, which is my entire point - we had high enough taxes to pay for it. If you are going to play, you have to pay, and we had tax rates high enough to cover these costs for the most part. Now, we start wars AND reduce taxes, which simply shifts all the costs into the future. What kind of person does that? JFK for one. He cut taxes by 22%. Vietnam was already commanding a price, and at least JFK had the foresight to recognize that you don't make things better by increasing the tax burden. Compare his results with his fellow democrat jimmy carter's results. I'm not a JFK fan either; but, the man was spot on when he said that "a rising tide lifts all boats." Give me one example where I'm better off if my boss loses. Your boss gets screwed so does his employees. That's just the way things happen in the real world. We should want our bosses to be successfull. *#!@ isn't the only thing that rolls downhill.
  24. the Imperial Federal Government...sounds like that was from either Star Trek or Star Wars. Barak Obiden McPalin, Chief Republicrat of the Imperial Federal Government.
×
×
  • Create New...