So, No Thoughts on New Hampshire?

[Enigma869]

Jesus, do I have to educate you on all things political! j/k/

"Slave state" refers to a state (as in a southern state), that once upon a time had slaves, that's all. NH is a lovely place, no arguing from me. Love that place. NH's political make up is much like Virginia, NC and Florida.

My "recipe for disaster" comment was a bit too strong. Take a state like Oregon. They have NO sales tax, and it's cool when you have a 1.56 to your name, and you are in the drive thru at McDonald's, and you don't have to figure out the tax However, Oregon's lack of a sales tax hits you straight in the eyes once you leave that drive thru, and drive on roads full of pot holes and ruts. My point is a tax is necessary, to enable all the features a state needs. Perhaps NH is the exception to the rule, and maybe they get away with it due to it's size. There aren't a whole lot of roads to maintain in NH!

I agree with your point there, Dean. NH obviously doesn't have a very large population, with most of the population density in southern, NH, close to the MA border. Because of that, the roadways definitely aren't as badly beaten up. Also, to be fair, NH does have VERY high property tax (They have to get it somewhere, right?), so it's not like there are no services in the state. They simply collect it in one fell swoop, as opposed to nickel and diming you every time you purchase a gallon of milk! I think the great thing about NH is the lack of income tax. By not having an income tax, it more than pays for the increase of property tax!


John from Boston

[strangegrey]

I can comment on this as my mother and father live in NH. Compared to Massachusetts, a state with tremendously high taxes, NH's infrastructure is in far better shape. Roads are well maintained and the state runs well. NH gets its funding through other means, i.e. property tax.

[Enigma869]

I can comment on this as my mother and father live in NH. Compared to Massachusetts, a state with tremendously high taxes, NH's infrastructure is in far better shape. Roads are well maintained and the state runs well. NH gets its funding through other means, i.e. property tax.

No argument from me on the infrastructure, when comparing the two states. That said, I have to tell you that the "tremendously high taxes" in MA are WAY overblown! While this list is a bit dated, from 2005... http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/ ... index.html , it shows that 31 states have a higher tax burden than MA, and I can't imagine it's changed much in two years. This list also shows just how favorable taxes are in the "Live Free or Die", state! Only Alaska has a more favorable tax burden than NH, and I'm not moving there!

I can tell you as a kid growing up in the Boston area, I always heard Massachusetts referred to as "Taxachusetts". After travelling the country, I learned pretty quickly that MA is a bargain, when compared to MANY other states! I can tell you that the MA state sales tax is only 5%, and it's only on "non-essential" items, which means you're not paying sales tax on a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. There are presently THIRTY SEVEN states in this country with a higher sales tax than MA. I can also tell you after visiting many of those states, the sales tax in most states is applied to EVERYTHING! My point...MA is a bargain, when compared to most other states in this country, when it comes to taxes, in spite of the perception or the catchy "Taxachusetts" monniker!


John from Boston

[7 Wishes]

W can't even negotiate tying his own shoes, let alone spearheading a peace accord. No-one will ever come closer to achieving that than Clinton did. In fact, it was Bush's anti-Muslim rhetoric and staunchly pro-Israel foreign policy that caused 9/11.

[Uno_up]

I can comment on this as my mother and father live in NH. Compared to Massachusetts, a state with tremendously high taxes, NH's infrastructure is in far better shape. Roads are well maintained and the state runs well. NH gets its funding through other means, i.e. property tax.

No argument from me on the infrastructure, when comparing the two states. That said, I have to tell you that the "tremendously high taxes" in MA are WAY overblown! While this list is a bit dated, from 2005... http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/ ... index.html , it shows that 31 states have a higher tax burden than MA, and I can't imagine it's changed much in two years. This list also shows just how favorable taxes are in the "Live Free or Die", state! Only Alaska has a more favorable tax burden than NH, and I'm not moving there!

I can tell you as a kid growing up in the Boston area, I always heard Massachusetts referred to as "Taxachusetts". After travelling the country, I learned pretty quickly that MA is a bargain, when compared to MANY other states! I can tell you that the MA state sales tax is only 5%, and it's only on "non-essential" items, which means you're not paying sales tax on a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. There are presently THIRTY SEVEN states in this country with a higher sales tax than MA. I can also tell you after visiting many of those states, the sales tax in most states is applied to EVERYTHING! My point...MA is a bargain, when compared to most other states in this country, when it comes to taxes, in spite of the perception or the catchy "Taxachusetts" monniker!


John from Boston

The BEST part of NH are the state-owned TAX FREE liquor stores conveniently located on the interstates like piss stops. I feel like I'm on that game show on a shopping spree when I'm in there.

[Natalie]

Doesn't Idaho put "Famous Potatoes" on their license plate (Where is Nat, when I need her).
John from Boston

Better late than never....I'm here babe! Yes, our plates do say "Famous Potatoes" and NO, Idaho does not suck. Dean sucks! hehe!

[Rip Rokken]

Better late than never....I'm here babe! Yes, our plates do say "Famous Potatoes" and NO, Idaho does not suck. Dean sucks! hehe!

Idaho?!? No, Idapimp, Youdaho! J/K

[Natalie]

Better late than never....I'm here babe! Yes, our plates do say "Famous Potatoes" and NO, Idaho does not suck. Dean sucks! hehe!

Idaho?!? No, Idapimp, Youdaho! J/K

[Rip Rokken]

LOL... Nice avatar by the way! I'd be pressing the call light every 5 minutes.

[Natalie]

LOL... Nice avatar by the way! I'd be pressing the call light every 5 minutes.

Thanks babe-I'd answer it every 5 minutes.

[Rip Rokken]

LOL... Nice avatar by the way! I'd be pressing the call light every 5 minutes.

Thanks babe-I'd answer it every 5 minutes.

You know, come to think of it, they'd probably wonder what the hell a guy was doing posing as a patient on your ward.

[Natalie]

LOL... Nice avatar by the way! I'd be pressing the call light every 5 minutes.

Thanks babe-I'd answer it every 5 minutes.

You know, come to think of it, they'd probably wonder what the hell a guy was doing posing as a patient on your ward.

I know how to take care of male patients too!!! But yes, it would be odd to have you in my current dept. Unless you were pressing your wife's call light!

[7 Wishes]

Just tell 'em you were once bitten, twice shy.

[conversationpc]

W can't even negotiate tying his own shoes, let alone spearheading a peace accord. No-one will ever come closer to achieving that than Clinton did. In fact, it was Bush's anti-Muslim rhetoric and staunchly pro-Israel foreign policy that caused 9/11.

You've got to be kidding me...One of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on this board and there have been many. Bush had only been in office for just over eight months when 9/11 occurred. Even those who blame America first would have to agree that most of the "damage" had been done prior to Bush even thinking about running for President.

[Wally_Hatchet]

In fact, it was Bush's anti-Muslim rhetoric and staunchly pro-Israel foreign policy that caused 9/11.

I guess you forgot about the WTC bombing in the 90's when Clinton was President. Or the USS Cole. Or the Embassy bombings...


Nothing personal 7W, but that was an idiotic statement.

[Enigma869]

For the record, I think W. is the biggest jackass on the planet, and I've NEVER been more embarrassed by ANY president. Clinton getting his knob jobbed under the desk, in the oval office wasn't half as offensive as the things that come out of W's mouth! Having said all that...I think it's ludicrous to suggest that W. is THE REASON that 9/11 happened. I honestly don't think W had ANYTHING to do with why 9/11 happened. It's just absurd to suggest that!

Now...you can certainly make the argument that his decision to go into Iraq, after 9/11 just further cements how inept of a president he is, and I would agree 100%. I just think that even when you despise someone, you have to be objective and not just make shit up! One of the reason I've always been a registered independent is because I simply have NEVER understood partisan politics. I don't get the concept of supporting a candidate, NO MATTER WHAT, just because that's the party you support! If someone fucks up, they fuck up! Anyone who truly believes that Bush has been even a good president has their head up their ass! I can assure you that there isn't one, single presidential historian who will EVER consider this guy to have been a good president!


John from Boston

[BobbyinTN]

I don't trust any of those politicians. But I do believe the can and do rig those primaries and try to manipulate every aspect.

I think the GOP believes that if Hillary is the nominee, it's an automatic win for them.

They could not be more wrong.

Democrats are united like never before and think whoever the nominee is, will win the election.

We're tired of the GOP. We tired of this war. We fuckin' tired of the Shrub and his uselessness and all those that helped him be so useless.

The greatest legacy George W. Shrub will leave is being able to unite democrats and all liberals like no ohter POTUS has ever done.

[Rockindeano]

You've got to be kidding me...One of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on this board and there have been many. Bush had only been in office for just over eight months when 9/11 occurred. Even those who blame America first would have to agree that most of the "damage" had been done prior to Bush even thinking about running for President.

Yep, blame the guy before Bush, it's his fault that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Thanks for the laugh this morning.

You guys will spin everything.

[lights1961]

You've got to be kidding me...One of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on this board and there have been many. Bush had only been in office for just over eight months when 9/11 occurred. Even those who blame America first would have to agree that most of the "damage" had been done prior to Bush even thinking about running for President.

Yep, blame the guy before Bush, it's his fault that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Thanks for the laugh this morning.

You guys will spin everything.

what about the first attemps on the world trade centers in 1993......plus all of the embassy bombings around the world... from 1993-2000... what did Clinton do about that...not too much... what is bush doing??? cleaning up all the mess... so hopefully the hatred will flame out in a generation over in the mid east......

[conversationpc]

You've got to be kidding me...One of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on this board and there have been many. Bush had only been in office for just over eight months when 9/11 occurred. Even those who blame America first would have to agree that most of the "damage" had been done prior to Bush even thinking about running for President.

Yep, blame the guy before Bush, it's his fault that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Thanks for the laugh this morning.

You guys will spin everything.

Dumbass...I wasn't talking specifically about Clinton, though there were probably things going on then that the radical Islamists would claim pissed them off.

If that's spin, what specifically can you refer to that Bush did in the 9 months leading up to 9/11 that contributed to it? Regardless, to say that ANY U.S. President, including Clinton or any of those before him, is responsible for 9/11 is ludicrous.

[strangegrey]

You've got to be kidding me...One of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on this board and there have been many. Bush had only been in office for just over eight months when 9/11 occurred. Even those who blame America first would have to agree that most of the "damage" had been done prior to Bush even thinking about running for President.

Yep, blame the guy before Bush, it's his fault that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Thanks for the laugh this morning.

You guys will spin everything.

Actually, I'd be more apt to blame the guy before the guy. If you know what I mean. Fucking Dubya is over in the Middle East RIGHT NOW promoting a Peace plan. 9/11 was quite convenient for the standing president. An opportunity to overthrow two regimes that were antagonistic to the US (and quite possibly a third)...all leading up to an attempt to strike up a Mideast Peace agreement....all the while not forgetting the importance of Oil here. Not that I agreed with Clinton's policy in the mid-east either...but I would be the first ex-right-winger to categorically state that the two fucking Bush motherfuckers did FAR more damage in the middle east combined than Clinton ever could have possibly done.

Personally, I'd rather see us be 100% free of any dependence on Mideast Oil. Completely pull out of that region and let them fucking kill eachother. Thats what they want anyway. Give it to them. But that's not going to happen either. Too many elected officials from Detroit are hell bent on protecting the dead US auto industry....and the US auto industry is so locked into a gasoline engine that they have zero incentive to ever think outside of the box and create something else...even though the first person that comes up with a car that can cost-effectively run free of gas will be an instant millionaire.

Getting back to 911, dont be so quick to let Dubya off the hook. There's ALOT of blame to go around...and there were ALOT of people in that asshole's administration looking the other way when those planes took off that morning.

[lights1961]

You've got to be kidding me...One of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on this board and there have been many. Bush had only been in office for just over eight months when 9/11 occurred. Even those who blame America first would have to agree that most of the "damage" had been done prior to Bush even thinking about running for President.

Yep, blame the guy before Bush, it's his fault that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Thanks for the laugh this morning.

You guys will spin everything.

Actually, I'd be more apt to blame the guy before the guy. If you know what I mean. Fucking Dubya is over in the Middle East RIGHT NOW promoting a Peace plan. 9/11 was quite convenient for the standing president. An opportunity to overthrow two regimes that were antagonistic to the US (and quite possibly a third)...all leading up to an attempt to strike up a Mideast Peace agreement....all the while not forgetting the importance of Oil here. Not that I agreed with Clinton's policy in the mid-east either...but I would be the first ex-right-winger to categorically state that the two fucking Bush motherfuckers did FAR more damage in the middle east combined than Clinton ever could have possibly done.

Personally, I'd rather see us be 100% free of any dependence on Mideast Oil. Completely pull out of that region and let them fucking kill eachother. Thats what they want anyway. Give it to them. But that's not going to happen either. Too many elected officials from Detroit are hell bent on protecting the dead US auto industry....and the US auto industry is so locked into a gasoline engine that they have zero incentive to ever think outside of the box and create something else...even though the first person that comes up with a car that can cost-effectively run free of gas will be an instant millionaire.

Getting back to 911, dont be so quick to let Dubya off the hook. There's ALOT of blame to go around...and there were ALOT of people in that asshole's administration looking the other way when those planes took off that morning.

please a treaty with arrafat---appeasement around the world so our enemies would love us... and people would love us... becasue we were weak that is the only reason we were loved back in the Clinton years... ... remember---the only reason the world hates us now...and that WE ARE STRONG and are doing the tough work that europe cant afford to do!! End the end we will be loved again for what we are doing... creating a region where they can actually have hope...instead of fighting...

Rick

Rick

[conversationpc]

please a treaty with arrafat---appeasement around the world so our enemies would love us.

ANY treaty made with that terrorist SOB was doomed to failure from the beginning. He NEVER had any intention of living peacefully with Israel and, while Israel made concessions, he continued making radical statements behind the scenes and laughing every time an Israeli was killed by a suicide bomber.

[Lula]

... what is bush doing??? cleaning up all the mess...

[Rockindeano]

please a treaty with arrafat---appeasement around the world so our enemies would love us... and people would love us... becasue we were weak that is the only reason we were loved back in the Clinton years... ... remember---the only reason the world hates us now...and that WE ARE STRONG and are doing the tough work that europe cant afford to do!! End the end we will be loved again for what we are doing... creating a region where they can actually have hope...instead of fighting...

Rick

Rick

We're strong? We can't even defeat Iraq let alone Afghanistan in a war. Want to know why?

America's strength has always been it's allies. How many strong allies do we have? One hand can hold the names. UK, Spain, Japan and maybe Australia. Impressive.

No Russia, no France, no Germany, no Canada.

We are an embarrassment. Cowboy diplomacy sure as Hell ain't workin. Fear not, it all changes in a year from now.

[conversationpc]

We're strong? We can't even defeat Iraq let alone Afghanistan in a war...

Bullcrap...The war part is actually over. It's the peacekeeping portion that is difficult and this would give ANY country trouble. Look at when Russia tried to subdue Afghanistan back in the 70s and 80s. They had trouble for YEARS with them. Same kind of stuff going on now. Doesn't mean we're weak.

[Rockindeano]

We're strong? We can't even defeat Iraq let alone Afghanistan in a war...

Bullcrap...The war part is actually over. It's the peacekeeping portion that is difficult and this would give ANY country trouble. Look at when Russia tried to subdue Afghanistan back in the 70s and 80s. They had trouble for YEARS with them. Same kind of stuff going on now. Doesn't mean we're weak.

Yeah, I forgot, Mission Accomplished.

You are fucking nuts. How warm is that US flag that you wrap yourself in?

[Marc S]

We're strong? We can't even defeat Iraq let alone Afghanistan in a war...

Bullcrap...The war part is actually over. It's the peacekeeping portion that is difficult and this would give ANY country trouble. Look at when Russia tried to subdue Afghanistan back in the 70s and 80s. They had trouble for YEARS with them. Same kind of stuff going on now. Doesn't mean we're weak.

It means, you and 'coalition' forces (including us) should not have gone in there in the first place. Thats the whole point. There was never a plan. Oh, we're here, we've knocked Saddams fucking statue down...now what the fuck?

[lights1961]

please a treaty with arrafat---appeasement around the world so our enemies would love us... and people would love us... becasue we were weak that is the only reason we were loved back in the Clinton years... ... remember---the only reason the world hates us now...and that WE ARE STRONG and are doing the tough work that europe cant afford to do!! End the end we will be loved again for what we are doing... creating a region where they can actually have hope...instead of fighting...

Rick

Rick

We're strong? We can't even defeat Iraq let alone Afghanistan in a war. Want to know why?

America's strength has always been it's allies. How many strong allies do we have? One hand can hold the names. UK, Spain, Japan and maybe Australia. Impressive.

No Russia, no France, no Germany, no Canada.

We are an embarrassment. Cowboy diplomacy sure as Hell ain't workin. Fear not, it all changes in a year from now.

is that why 10 soon to be 11 out of 18 provinces are being handed over to the iraqis to secure and govern.. gee thats failure... warped dude...

[Rockindeano]

please a treaty with arrafat---appeasement around the world so our enemies would love us... and people would love us... becasue we were weak that is the only reason we were loved back in the Clinton years... ... remember---the only reason the world hates us now...and that WE ARE STRONG and are doing the tough work that europe cant afford to do!! End the end we will be loved again for what we are doing... creating a region where they can actually have hope...instead of fighting...

Rick

Rick

We're strong? We can't even defeat Iraq let alone Afghanistan in a war. Want to know why?

America's strength has always been it's allies. How many strong allies do we have? One hand can hold the names. UK, Spain, Japan and maybe Australia. Impressive.

No Russia, no France, no Germany, no Canada.

We are an embarrassment. Cowboy diplomacy sure as Hell ain't workin. Fear not, it all changes in a year from now.

is that why 10 soon to be 11 out of 18 provinces are being handed over to the iraqis to secure and govern.. gee thats failure... warped dude...

Wow! 10 out of 18 provinces are being handed over to the Iraqis. Can you tell me why we lost 3,000 American lives again? You "Pro lifers" sure protect babies, but could give a rats ass about soldiers, but hey, like I said before, you all don't fight, so who gives a shit?