More than 700 arrested in Wall Street protest

Ockham · Oct 10, 2011

sangha said:
I guess the picture of the American Spectators editor at the head of the protest just means we're being misled by our lying leftist eyes. :cuckoo:

No more misled than pictures of Obama and Rev. Wright... problem is with partisan fruitloops, the hypocrisy eventually rears it's ugly head, and you just reared the hypocrisy.

sangha · Oct 10, 2011

Ockham said:
No more misled than pictures of Obama and Rev. Wright... problem is with partisan fruitloops, the hypocrisy eventually rears it's ugly head, and you just reared.

Translation: Ockham got pwned and is trying to change the subject to our Muslims presidents radical christian preacher

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

sangha said:

Is that dumb assery supposed to sway my opinion? If you think so, then you are sadily mistaken....

j-mac

sangha · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Is that dumb assery supposed to sway my opinion? If you think so, then you are sadily mistaken....

j-mac

It is both expected and predicted that nothing will sway your opinion.

That was kind of the point of the cartoon :lol:

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

sangha said:
Translation: Ockham got pwned and is trying to change the subject to our Muslims presidents radical christian preacher

Does Romney's affiliation with Mormonism make you believe that he can not be elected President?

j-mac

sangha · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Does Romney's affiliation with Mormonism make you believe that he can not be elected President?

j-mac

Translation: A rightwinger got pwned, so now another rightwinger is going to try to change the subject

They're so predictable

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

sangha said:
It is both expected and predicted that nothing will sway your opinion.

That was kind of the point of the cartoon :lol:

Make a cogent argument, and give it a go...unless your point for even being here is not to discuss anything as much as incite, and mislead, and be a general provocateur.

In which case I would re add you to ignore.

j-mac

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

sangha said:
Translation: A rightwinger got pwned, so now another rightwinger is going to try to change the subject

They're so predictable

I am asking you a question, do you think you could answer it without the Bull **** for a change? I am trying to have a conversation.

j-mac

sangha · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Make a cogent argument, and give it a go...unless your point for even being here is not to discuss anything as much as incite, and mislead, and be a general provocateur.

In which case I would re add you to ignore.

j-mac

Just more proof that Mr Tomorrow was spot on

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

sangha said:
Just more proof that Mr Tomorrow was spot on

*Sigh* ok, let's try this another way, explain "Economic injustice"

j-mac

sangha · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
*Sigh* ok, let's try this another way, explain "Economic injustice"

j-mac

Which word don't you understand?

Or is it both?

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

sangha said:
Which word don't you understand?

Or is it both?

No, the concept. The cartoonist that you are posting isn't just throwing out mindless words, he is trying to convey a concept that somehow conservatives don't understand what 'economic injustice' means, so before we can have any meaningful conversation on the matter, if that is what you want, you'd have to clarify in order so that I have it clear what you are saying...Is that fair?

j-mac

sangha · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
No, the concept. The cartoonist that you are posting isn't just throwing out mindless words, he is trying to convey a concept that somehow conservatives don't understand what 'economic injustice' means, so before we can have any meaningful conversation on the matter, if that is what you want, you'd have to clarify in order so that I have it clear what you are saying...Is that fair?

j-mac

You don't understand the concept of economic injustice?

Thanks for proving that Tom Tomorrow was right

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

sangha said:
You don't understand the concept of economic injustice?

Thanks for proving that Tom Tomorrow was right

I will give you one more chance....Now I'll even say please. Explain what you mean by Economic injustice so that we can have a conversation...

j-mac

sangha · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
I will give you one more chance....Now I'll even say please. Explain what you mean by Economic injustice so that we can have a conversation...

j-mac

Why should I explain anything to those who are determined to not understand?

The protestors have made cogent arguments eloquently, but rightwingers are so determined to not understand that they make silly claims about how the protestors want stuff for free, as you did in an earlier post. The disingenous need nor deserve any explanations

Zyphlin · Oct 10, 2011

Moderator's Warning:

The flaming needs to stop now.

Additionally, we get it. There's a cartoon. It doesn't need to be posted 20 times. Continue spamming it and infractions will be coming

Boo Radley · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
I will give you one more chance....Now I'll even say please. Explain what you mean by Economic injustice so that we can have a conversation...

j-mac

Try programs that give an unfair advantage to one group over another. Think coporate welfare. Think education that is better for some but not others, thus making economic opportunity less likely. Think getting most of the benefit, as the wealthy do, but finding ways to not paid that share of the tax burden.

Does that help?

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

sangha said:
Why should I explain anything to those who are determined to not understand?

Really, I want to have this conversation with you, and rather than use my definition of the so called 'economic injustice', I'd really like to hear you lay it out as to what you believe it is.

The protestors have made cogent arguments eloquently, but rightwingers are so determined to not understand that they make silly claims about how the protestors want stuff for free, as you did in an earlier post.

They have? I see nothing so far that can be construed as any cogent argument for anything other than say being against the bankers receiving TARP, which BTW, many conservatives like myself can agree with. Their list of so called demands, as posted on their own website was an utter joke. So this is why I am trying so hard with you, to have, and or open a dialogue on what you see here, and by that we need a starting point. That is by your own cartoon "economic injustice"..... I am only asking that you define it so that I don't misrepresent what you say. You seem to not want to have a conversation, is that about right?

The disingenous need nor deserve any explanations

How is it that you feel I am being disingenuous? I have tried for nearly two pages now just to get you to discuss rather than bait and flame. Listen, believe it or not, you're a smart kid, and I'd like to pick your brain for a moment. Now is that possible, or are you just going to refuse to talk at all?

j-mac

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Try programs that give an unfair advantage to one group over another. Think coporate welfare. Think education that is better for some but not others, thus making economic opportunity less likely. Think getting most of the benefit, as the wealthy do, but finding ways to not paid that share of the tax burden.

Does that help?

Well, that helps define some of Boo's parameters on what it is, but I'd really like to hear Sangha's definition. I don't however think that will be forthcoming, because I don't think that is what he visits here for.

As to your own definitions, how would you effect change in those areas, some of which we have common ground on.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Well, that helps define some of Boo's parameters on what it is, but I'd really like to hear Sangha's definition. I don't however think that will be forthcoming, because I don't think that is what he visits here for.

As to your own definitions, how would you effect change in those areas, some of which we have common ground on.

j-mac

End much of corporate welfare. I would have a high standard for giving tax dollars to help business. I would close loop holes.

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

Boo Radley said:
End much of corporate welfare. I would have a high standard for giving tax dollars to help business. I would close loop holes.

Ok, Many today don't have a problem with closing loopholes. However, what are you defining as a loophole, and how does eliminating incentives induce a greater business climate in the US as opposed to say Canada if the overriding tax rates are higher?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Ok, Many today don't have a problem with closing loopholes. However, what are you defining as a loophole, and how does eliminating incentives induce a greater business climate in the US as opposed to say Canada if the overriding tax rates are higher?

j-mac

I think you have a broad notion of incentive. Business has incentive enough to simly make a profit. They don't need government running around providing incentive. Business has incentive regardless of taxes. We've just gotten in the habit of trying to bribe them into liking us. We would have to lower wages to cents on the dollor, do away with benefits, and never ever tax them to keep them. That makes them no longer worth having. We have to stop acting like that klingy mate who does anything to keep someone, all the while driving them further away.

Of all the reasons businesses are leaving here, taxes hardly rate at all.

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I think you have a broad notion of incentive. Business has incentive enough to simly make a profit. They don't need government running around providing incentive. Business has incentive regardless of taxes. We've just gotten in the habit of trying to bribe them into liking us. We would have to lower wages to cents on the dollor, do away with benefits, and never ever tax them to keep them. That makes them no longer worth having. We have to stop acting like that klingy mate who does anything to keep someone, all the while driving them further away.

Of all the reasons businesses are leaving here, taxes hardly rate at all.

Oh, I don't believe that for one second. But, regardless I can agree that an overhaul of the entire tax code is upon us, and sorely needed. However, what I am not with is that by removing the tax breaks, and credits that allow some businesses in America, on the margins to report the profits that their shareholders demand without relocating to places like Canada, if you are advocating a flatter tax structure, that is simpler to understand, and easier to comply with, therefore reducing the IRS role then I am 100% with you. But if you are advocating simply cherry picking those that YOU think are getting away with something because you have some alterior motive for raising their taxes through a disingenuous method of redistributive change, then we are worlds apart.

BTW, Buffet is a fraud, and a liar. He should pay his own back tax before casting his disingenuous argument.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Oh, I don't believe that for one second. But, regardless I can agree that an overhaul of the entire tax code is upon us, and sorely needed. However, what I am not with is that by removing the tax breaks, and credits that allow some businesses in America, on the margins to report the profits that their shareholders demand without relocating to places like Canada, if you are advocating a flatter tax structure, that is simpler to understand, and easier to comply with, therefore reducing the IRS role then I am 100% with you. But if you are advocating simply cherry picking those that YOU think are getting away with something because you have some alterior motive for raising their taxes through a disingenuous method of redistributive change, then we are worlds apart.

BTW, Buffet is a fraud, and a liar. He should pay his own back tax before casting his disingenuous argument.

j-mac

Then J, and I say this with respect, you're part of the problem. We have as exampels states who eliminated all taxes, and still saw business leave. The fact is they leave regardless of taxes. In the global market place, they can get cheap labor and not have to pay benefits. You simply can't cut taxes enough. you give them all the leverage, saying we'll do anythign to keep you, as long as someone else is doing the doing.

Now, we can reduce the role of the IRS by simply doing away with many of the complicated loop holes, but a flat tax puts more burden on those getting less from government, and less burden on those getting more. it's a weird kind of view that wants one segmnet of the population to get all the breaks on the backs of another. Business should be a mutually beneficial proposition, of which taxes should not enter into the discussion at all. Taxes is what business pays for the governmental services they recieve, and they do receive them. It should not enter into our jobs at all. You and I should enter into a mutually benefiical relationship in which they pay for my services. Now if they can get an illegal, or move to whereever to get someone to work for 75 cebts an hour, with no benefits, do we want that here? How should we address that? Taxes won't change the math.

sangha · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Really, I want to have this conversation with you, and rather than use my definition of the so called 'economic injustice', I'd really like to hear you lay it out as to what you believe it is.

I don't believe a word you post. Your claims about what the OWS protesters want are obviously dishonest.

They have? I see nothing so far that can be construed as any cogent argument for anything other than say being against the bankers receiving TARP, which BTW, many conservatives like myself can agree with. Their list of so called demands, as posted on their own website was an utter joke. So this is why I am trying so hard with you, to have, and or open a dialogue on what you see here, and by that we need a starting point. That is by your own cartoon "economic injustice"..... I am only asking that you define it so that I don't misrepresent what you say. You seem to not want to have a conversation, is that about right?

And your continued dishonesty just proves my original decision was the correct one.

How is it that you feel I am being disingenuous? I have tried for nearly two pages now just to get you to discuss rather than bait and flame. Listen, believe it or not, you're a smart kid, and I'd like to pick your brain for a moment. Now is that possible, or are you just going to refuse to talk at all?

j-mac

By labelling anything you don't like as "stupid" and "they want stuff for free" and your other claims which are both inane and dishonest. You are the one who has baited and flamed, every time you have posted about what these protests are about.

More than 700 arrested in Wall Street protest

Noblesse oblige