The ..2012.... Political thread
-
that poll was taken before the circular firing squad started in earnest and also Mittens shooting himself in the foot New poll # will take that into account....it's going to be a fun election..
-
mustangsally10:
that poll was taken before the circular firing squad started in earnest and also Mittens shooting himself in the foot New poll # will take that into account....it's going to be a fun election..
Only a dangerously extreme 'left' would find 'fault' (LOL) with the Romney comments you're referring to...and in the worse case scenario, it's way more benign than say....ummm....stating that terrorist are our friends (like a certain 'Obamination' has said)...but I do agree with you that it will be a fun election this year...especially if you're republic and a moderate who even slightly favors the right The only thing Obama has going for him is that he can sing (or at least he thinks so...LOL)
-
rich n:
mustangsally10:
that poll was taken before the circular firing squad started in earnest and also Mittens shooting himself in the foot New poll # will take that into account....it's going to be a fun election..
Only a dangerously extreme 'left' would find 'fault' (LOL) with the Romney comments you're referring to...and in the worse case scenario, it's way more benign than say....ummm....stating that terrorist are our friends (like a certain 'Obamination' has said)...but I do agree with you that it will be a fun election this year...especially if you're republic and a moderate who even slightly favors the right The only thing Obama has going for him is that he can sing (or at least he thinks so...LOL)
That's why Red State and Free Republic are in a free fall today also even establishment types like Sununu are upset with Mittens But you just keep spinning and lying : He's all yours
-
mustangsally10:
rich n:
mustangsally10:
that poll was taken before the circular firing squad started in earnest and also Mittens shooting himself in the foot New poll # will take that into account....it's going to be a fun election..
Only a dangerously extreme 'left' would find 'fault' (LOL) with the Romney comments you're referring to...and in the worse case scenario, it's way more benign than say....ummm....stating that terrorist are our friends (like a certain 'Obamination' has said)...but I do agree with you that it will be a fun election this year...especially if you're republic and a moderate who even slightly favors the right The only thing Obama has going for him is that he can sing (or at least he thinks so...LOL)
That's why Red State and Free Republic are in a free fall today also even establishment types like Sununu are upset with Mittens But you just keep spinning and lying : He's all yours
Is that what your communistic lefty gallop polls say today when reporting their flavor of the week? I don't read the Daily KOS...so do please tell
-
rich n:
service_gamer:
rich n:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Well...why ARE you? Instead of for the suffering masses.
Its not about interest in the wealthy...its about liberals eagerness to streak from those who earned what they have and give it to a freeloader. The ratio of those living inpoverty due to lack of ambition far outways those who are truly unfortunately.
That's an opinion, not a fact. Stating opinion as fact usually underscores a flimsy argument, or at least an argument that the person in question isn't qualified to make (in this case, how do you know exactly that freeloaders "far" outweigh the unfortunate? Oh, that's right, you're just pulling assumptions out your rear). Now, why do conservatives try to act like taxing the rich a bit more amounts to outright stealing hard-earned wealth to give handouts to lazy degenerates? I would bet (see, this signifies an opinion, since I'm not qualified to assert it as a fact) that the silver-spoon-in-mouth trust-fund babies to self-made men and women far outweighs the number of freeloaders to unfortunate. And besides, regardless of how the money was earned, it's indisputable that responsibility for our current economic mess rests in the hands of wealthy folks (which wealthy people, and how much they contributed are debatable). Why is taxing the rich a bit more so off-limits? Conservatives cry socialism, but unless the rich are taxed to the point that they take home the same amount as the lower class after taxes, that isn't socialism. It seriously makes me want to beat my head against a wall. To dispel any confusion on my thoughts on this, I think that the tax system should work roughly like this. If someone makes ten million annually, have a rate up to 250,000, up a bit from like 250,001 to 2 million, then maybe 2 to 5 million, then 5 to 10, etc. Why is this socialism and/or why is this so bad?
This is so far off the mark, I don't know where to start. I'd be willing to bet (yes, an opinion on my part too...LOL) self made millionaires far outweigh the old 'silver spoon' crowd (not everyone who's rich in America is a Kennedy) Second, rich people pay way more taxes that poor people do...(people with an annual income of over $1m pay 29.1% in various taxes compared to only 15% for people who have annual incomes of 50K to 75K). This here is a fact and not opinion. The focus of the problem is that rich people aren't taxed on their investments. But then again, nobody is - the money leaving my paycheck and put into my 401K is not taxed and I'm as polar opposite to rich as you can get...LOL. Basically the rules are no one gets taxed on their investments (unless you break the terms of agreement and take money before the investments have matured - to which you then get hammered with taxes and penalties)...so basically, the rich are taxed at a greater rate, but get to play by the same rules as everyone else in terms of investing...so what's the problem? The link below is one of about a billion hits you can find if you google the topic (and since you and several others seem to not be able to discern opinions as well as slight exaggerations - a billion hits' might be a slight exaggeration...LOL): http://www.newser.com/story/129022/rich-people-dont-pay-less-taxes-than-secretaries.html
You?ve got to be kidding me. Don?t try to laugh off your predilection towards opinion as fact by saying that me ?and several others aren?t able to discern opinions as well as slight exaggerations.? First, the very premise is false since I called you on stating opinion as fact (that would be discerning an opinion). Second, it wasn?t a slight exaggeration, the comment in question was this: ?Its not about interest in the wealthy...its about liberals eagerness to streak from those who earned what they have and give it to a freeloader. The ratio of those living inpoverty due to lack of ambition far outways those who are truly unfortunately.? To claim that this was meant as a slight exaggeration is intellectually dishonest. It has no qualifiers (such as my ?I bet? example, which you mocked), plus it?s indicative of the type of rhetoric you constantly throw out. Despite the numerous examples of inherited wealth, you just happen to pick the Kennedy family. Why? It seems like common sense to pick a conservative family, even if it were just a thinly veiled attempt to maintain a modicum of objectivity. Instead, you undermine your argument even before you begin. Now, as for your little lecture on the tax system. This would be great if we lived in a world in which there were no tax loopholes. No, it?s not the fault of the wealthy that these loopholes exist and that they take advantage of them, but to shoot down talk of legitimate tax raises for the wealthy as ?class warfare? is absolutely vile. But they skip the details and convince average Americans that Democrats want to raise taxes and Republicans want to cut taxes, when in fact both uses of the word ?taxes? should be followed by ?for the wealthy.? Finally, why shouldn?t investments be taxed? Or at least, why shouldn?t there be bracketed taxes for returns on investments? It seems like this would be easiest to take care of. This is speaking in generalities again, but say someone earns $5 million on a $3 million investment for a total of $8 million. The original three isn?t taxed, and the rest could be bracketed: Earnings of a dollar to $2 million aren?t taxed, $2 to $4 million, 5%; $4 to 6 million, 7.5%; etc. Obviously there would be a cap on how high the rate gets to a certain point (maybe even no more than 10%), but for this example, the person earning $5 million pays ?just? $175,000 on a $5 million earning, leaving them with ?only? $4,825,000. You would probably counter that this is needlessly penalizing the rich, but I find something like this to be a compromise. Average Americans really are struggling, why not give them a tax break, even if it?s footed by the wealthiest citizens, rather than deride them as lazy and unmotivated? His comments were definitely taken a bit out of context, but you have Mitt Romney espousing your viewpoint, claiming that he doesn?t care about the very poor. I know what he meant, that there will always unfortunately be poor, and we must focus on the 90 to 95% that are struggling more than usual. But he claims he will be helping the middle class, when his tax plan, as noted by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, most greatly benefits the wealthy. All the more galling, through various loopholes, Romney?s tax returns revealed he paid less than 15% in taxes in 2010, which, as you might note, is much lower than the 29.1% ?wealthy? rate and a smidge under the 15% ?average? rate that you so condescendingly tried to lecture me about. Your apparent need to tirelessly defend the GOP while making sure to deride Democrats and the president, both professionally and personally (take Romney?s gaffe; I objectively noted what I perceive he meant, you try to change the subject by giving us your best Sarah Palin impression with a William Ayers reference), even though it seems to contradict your best interests calls to mind Thomas Frank?s ?What?s the Matter with Kansas??
-
Mittens followed up his notorious "I don't care about the very poor" remark with stating they have a "safety net," that's why he doesn't--ludicrous...some "safety net" ! It has some big holes in it which would get bigger under Mittens' reign. Said "reign" cause when there's a GOP Prez he's constantly in the news, in our face, looms omnipresent whereas a Democratic prez tones it down (a little too much). It almost seems like the GOP Prez is really "the King." Of course there are much more serious problems and troubles with having an Elephant party head honcho, than that. Willard Mitt was putting on a big show at gatherings with voters, in reality he can hardly bear to socialize and get touchy feely with strangers judging from many things I've read. Obama projects some genuine warmth (although not as much as fervent hugger Bill Clinton) and doesn't seem like a phony when reaching out. These are relatively minor quibbles about Romney. Unfortunately major foibles exist, which will be scrutinized and thoroughly deconstructed and analyzed , we can have no fear they won't be and as Sally pointed out will provide quite a show. The glare of the spotlight on Newt's failings has been downright embarrassing at times even if you're on "the other side." The man has a lot of chutzpah to even think about running.
-
LOL - 'notorious'? Only on a lib could make this stuff up...
-
service_gamer:
rich n:
service_gamer:
rich n:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Well...why ARE you? Instead of for the suffering masses.
Its not about interest in the wealthy...its about liberals eagerness to streak from those who earned what they have and give it to a freeloader. The ratio of those living inpoverty due to lack of ambition far outways those who are truly unfortunately.
That's an opinion, not a fact. Stating opinion as fact usually underscores a flimsy argument, or at least an argument that the person in question isn't qualified to make (in this case, how do you know exactly that freeloaders "far" outweigh the unfortunate? Oh, that's right, you're just pulling assumptions out your rear). Now, why do conservatives try to act like taxing the rich a bit more amounts to outright stealing hard-earned wealth to give handouts to lazy degenerates? I would bet (see, this signifies an opinion, since I'm not qualified to assert it as a fact) that the silver-spoon-in-mouth trust-fund babies to self-made men and women far outweighs the number of freeloaders to unfortunate. And besides, regardless of how the money was earned, it's indisputable that responsibility for our current economic mess rests in the hands of wealthy folks (which wealthy people, and how much they contributed are debatable). Why is taxing the rich a bit more so off-limits? Conservatives cry socialism, but unless the rich are taxed to the point that they take home the same amount as the lower class after taxes, that isn't socialism. It seriously makes me want to beat my head against a wall. To dispel any confusion on my thoughts on this, I think that the tax system should work roughly like this. If someone makes ten million annually, have a rate up to 250,000, up a bit from like 250,001 to 2 million, then maybe 2 to 5 million, then 5 to 10, etc. Why is this socialism and/or why is this so bad?
This is so far off the mark, I don't know where to start. I'd be willing to bet (yes, an opinion on my part too...LOL) self made millionaires far outweigh the old 'silver spoon' crowd (not everyone who's rich in America is a Kennedy) Second, rich people pay way more taxes that poor people do...(people with an annual income of over $1m pay 29.1% in various taxes compared to only 15% for people who have annual incomes of 50K to 75K). This here is a fact and not opinion. The focus of the problem is that rich people aren't taxed on their investments. But then again, nobody is - the money leaving my paycheck and put into my 401K is not taxed and I'm as polar opposite to rich as you can get...LOL. Basically the rules are no one gets taxed on their investments (unless you break the terms of agreement and take money before the investments have matured - to which you then get hammered with taxes and penalties)...so basically, the rich are taxed at a greater rate, but get to play by the same rules as everyone else in terms of investing...so what's the problem? The link below is one of about a billion hits you can find if you google the topic (and since you and several others seem to not be able to discern opinions as well as slight exaggerations - a billion hits' might be a slight exaggeration...LOL): http://www.newser.com/story/129022/rich-people-dont-pay-less-taxes-than-secretaries.html
You?ve got to be kidding me. Don?t try to laugh off your predilection towards opinion as fact by saying that me ?and several others aren?t able to discern opinions as well as slight exaggerations.? First, the very premise is false since I called you on stating opinion as fact (that would be discerning an opinion). Second, it wasn?t a slight exaggeration, the comment in question was this: ?Its not about interest in the wealthy...its about liberals eagerness to streak from those who earned what they have and give it to a freeloader. The ratio of those living inpoverty due to lack of ambition far outways those who are truly unfortunately.? To claim that this was meant as a slight exaggeration is intellectually dishonest. It has no qualifiers (such as my ?I bet? example, which you mocked), plus it?s indicative of the type of rhetoric you constantly throw out. Despite the numerous examples of inherited wealth, you just happen to pick the Kennedy family. Why? It seems like common sense to pick a conservative family, even if it were just a thinly veiled attempt to maintain a modicum of objectivity. Instead, you undermine your argument even before you begin. Now, as for your little lecture on the tax system. This would be great if we lived in a world in which there were no tax loopholes. No, it?s not the fault of the wealthy that these loopholes exist and that they take advantage of them, but to shoot down talk of legitimate tax raises for the wealthy as ?class warfare? is absolutely vile. But they skip the details and convince average Americans that Democrats want to raise taxes and Republicans want to cut taxes, when in fact both uses of the word ?taxes? should be followed by ?for the wealthy.? Finally, why shouldn?t investments be taxed? Or at least, why shouldn?t there be bracketed taxes for returns on investments? It seems like this would be easiest to take care of. This is speaking in generalities again, but say someone earns $5 million on a $3 million investment for a total of $8 million. The original three isn?t taxed, and the rest could be bracketed: Earnings of a dollar to $2 million aren?t taxed, $2 to $4 million, 5%; $4 to 6 million, 7.5%; etc. Obviously there would be a cap on how high the rate gets to a certain point (maybe even no more than 10%), but for this example, the person earning $5 million pays ?just? $175,000 on a $5 million earning, leaving them with ?only? $4,825,000. You would probably counter that this is needlessly penalizing the rich, but I find something like this to be a compromise. Average Americans really are struggling, why not give them a tax break, even if it?s footed by the wealthiest citizens, rather than deride them as lazy and unmotivated? His comments were definitely taken a bit out of context, but you have Mitt Romney espousing your viewpoint, claiming that he doesn?t care about the very poor. I know what he meant, that there will always unfortunately be poor, and we must focus on the 90 to 95% that are struggling more than usual. But he claims he will be helping the middle class, when his tax plan, as noted by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, most greatly benefits the wealthy. All the more galling, through various loopholes, Romney?s tax returns revealed he paid less than 15% in taxes in 2010, which, as you might note, is much lower than the 29.1% ?wealthy? rate and a smidge under the 15% ?average? rate that you so condescendingly tried to lecture me about. Your apparent need to tirelessly defend the GOP while making sure to deride Democrats and the president, both professionally and personally (take Romney?s gaffe; I objectively noted what I perceive he meant, you try to change the subject by giving us your best Sarah Palin impression with a William Ayers reference), even though it seems to contradict your best interests calls to mind Thomas Frank?s ?What?s the Matter with Kansas??
I see the baloney factory is producing at full strength today Your tax ideas are abysmal. You want to have more tax money available to help various groups in need? Have the gov't start allocating the money from taxes taken from us to where it should be instead of extorting more money from all of us (not just the rich)...and as mentioned before, all groups are privy to the same tax breaks you accuse the rich taking advantage of. I am in no way rich and I have a 401K - why don't you start blasting that since I'm not taxed on that money? Your attack at my example of the Kennedy's (democrats btw) is way off the mark as they are the poster children of what being born into money and becoming spoiled rich (not to mention cheating the gov't) is all about. And the part I bolded - it's you who wants to play this 'tit for tat' game about the differences between opinion and fact. And btw, your 'opinion' about the ratio of rich people who worked hard for their money vs who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth was in fact duly noted as just your opinion...but that doesn't protect it from me calling BS on it
-
Powerful vid Change did happen
You must admit change did happen under bush too but WOW it was almost ALL BAD ignored 9/11 threats Iraq War Broke the economy etc, etc, etc. A disaster presidency all around -
mustangsally10:
Powerful vid Change did happen
You must admit change did happen under bush too but WOW it was almost ALL BAD ignored 9/11 threats Iraq War Broke the economy etc, etc, etc. A disaster presidency all aroundThe only pathetic disaster is our current president and the people actually brainwashed enough to want to keep him for a second term
-
Not sure if I posted this one already...but I'm not apologizing if I have (deserves another look...LOL) A $50 Lesson I recently asked my neighbors little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, If you were President what would be the first thing you would do? She replied, I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.' Her parents beamed with pride! Wow...what a worthy goal. I told her, But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that! You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house. She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50? I said, Welcome to the Republican Party.
-
rich n:
mustangsally10:
Powerful vid Change did happen
You must admit change did happen under bush too but WOW it was almost ALL BAD ignored 9/11 threats Iraq War Broke the economy etc, etc, etc. A disaster presidency all aroundThe only pathetic disaster is our current president and the people actually brainwashed enough to want to keep him for a second term
Really, Rich? The only disaster? Only? Really? Are you implying that things were peachy when Obama was sworn in?
-
rich n:
Not sure if I posted this one already...but I'm not apologizing if I have (deserves another look...LOL) A $50 Lesson I recently asked my neighbors little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, If you were President what would be the first thing you would do? She replied, I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.' Her parents beamed with pride! Wow...what a worthy goal. I told her, But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that! You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house. She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50? I said, Welcome to the Republican Party.
Stop spreading the myth that liberals are all about friggin' hand-outs. Please! I work. And I make damn good money. And I'm good at what I do. I take pride in my technical skills and efficiency. And I expect to be paid for my work. But I also want to live in a country with tax-funded education, single-payer healthcare and solid military defense. Everybody wins when everybody, at least, gets a chance.
-
richn is spreading so many lies and misinformation that it's made him appear "off his rocker" (being polite here) He is in la la land as are many who believe the BS that the republicans hand out. Their economic and social philosophies have been proven wrong and a disaster and yet they keep pushing the same disastrous policies because they don't have any other ideas. They are a massive failure and their non fact based existence is dangerous.
-
My heart filled with joy when I watched this video: http://oceanrobbins.com/resources/breakthrough-speech-from-autistic-twins/ We all can learn so much from this twin.
-
-
all politicians are devious careerist crooks. none of them are to be trusted....if you think that any of them are good people you are kidding yourselves.
-
Corpocrat or Corpublican matters not.
-
I'd throw more support behind Ron Paul, but his diehard commitment to minimal government could produce both welcome reforms and several disasters at the same time. He wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act, for example. Again, his platform is "no government," but without that act, people with my skin color would really have a lot of problems in this country.
-
audi:
rich n:
Not sure if I posted this one already...but I'm not apologizing if I have (deserves another look...LOL) A $50 Lesson I recently asked my neighbors little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, If you were President what would be the first thing you would do? She replied, I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.' Her parents beamed with pride! Wow...what a worthy goal. I told her, But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that! You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house. She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50? I said, Welcome to the Republican Party.
Stop spreading the myth that liberals are all about friggin' hand-outs. Please! I work. And I make damn good money. And I'm good at what I do. I take pride in my technical skills and efficiency. And I expect to be paid for my work. But I also want to live in a country with tax-funded education, single-payer healthcare and solid military defense. Everybody wins when everybody, at least, gets a chance.
But then you support a gov't that gives free handouts...I too work, make money and pay my own share of taxes, which I readily admit are needed to support various programs. But I don't like giving my money away to someone who can work but isn't willing to...if the solution was simply prove that everyone who lived in poverty or were homeless to prove they are truly disabled in some way (physically or mentally) and can't work, I'd be all for supporting them. The way dems want to set this up, it's too easy for lazy people to take advantage of the system