The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say
I tell you what Adagio, everything I mentioned to show child he was very uneducated on the subject is true, and I have much more if he foolishly decides to rebut those statements.
It's not the kitchen sink, it's facts, objective evidence, empirical data, well reasoned and true thought processes that transcend your mediocrity and your ridiculous generic talking points and I dare you to rebut any of it.
C'mon, you been the bastion of liberal information the last few days, objecting to every Conservative's post and rattling off useless generalities in response to true data.
So line by line, point by point in my sub-prime post counter each one with your "TRUTH". If you don't your scared and defeated and make no bones about it, I'l slap down anything nonsense you continue to vomit out on to this forums.
This is a challenge so put your money where your mouth is. WE ARE WAITING
" If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else ? "
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!
Yes context is important. You might consider that and qualify your claims before making an absolute statement that people always act in their own self interest. You may even want to consider that regarding politicians. Unless you know the inner workings of what they are all thinking, it's just a subjective generalization based on cynicism.Context is discussing politicians who most certainly act in their own self interest most of the time. At no point did I argue anyone is a self serving asshole. There is such a thing as enlightened self interest, you know.
Right. And if he said the surge was such a sweet thing despite the fact that the war was a complete blunder and Bush was wrong in doing it...I'm sure that McCain and the Republicans would have no issue with him at all. If you even bothered to look at the video interview he did on Fox, you know that isn't true. The so-called "Surge" was but one thing that he mentioned. So why are you perpetuating this absurdity? Hagel went against Bush and the Republicans and this is political payback in McCains own words. It's blatent political crap on his part and those of the Republithugs.Except that Hagel made that particular quote about the Surge. Not the war, but the surge itself.
Oh brother ... "You don't go to war because you don't like the guy or he threatened you Dad. That's self interest." That's not a talking point. That's common sense. "You look for the reasons NOT to go to war. It's a last resort, not the first." That's not a talking point. That's LOGIC! "But no...Rummy wanted something sexier. He wanted Shock and Awe. We've got to show the people back home some **** blowing up other than a bunch of rocks." That's not a talking point. That's Rumsfeld words. Afghanistan was appealing back home. He wanted something more like the Gulf War to maintain public support for their idiocy.Look at all the shiny liberal talking points, like youre reading them out of the NYT or DU.
So...no. sorry but these aren't talking points put out by the DNC. These are observations that any normal thinking person can make.
I'm sure a person like yourself needs to be told what to think via some talking points, and as a result you think that everybody does the same thing, and can't think for themselves. But you're projecting your own problems on everyone else. You don't need a talking point to inform you that you dont' cut taxes and take your country to war. You don't need them to know that war is a last resort and not the first. You don't need them to know that when the Sec. of Defense wants a better visual to justify a war of aggression against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, that the justification is bogus and without any merit. All of those comments from me on those very subjects are not "talking points" that I needed to have fed to me. I could figure that much out on my own. It's called thinking. Try it sometime. It works really well.the only way you can infer these things is by reading the minds of the people making the decisions and I think Im going to have to go with ideology typing up opinions as though they were facts.
As for being a "tool" that's exactly what a person that relies on "talking points" is. A useful tool for those that are promoting their own agenda. What you object to is my calling it what it is. So fine. You and Fenton are not "tools". You simply do the bidding of those that supply you with your argument. Feel better now?
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but corporate income has nothing to do with the income of the executives and they aren't taxed on the corporations profits. Their income is completely separate from that. They dont' pay their employees out of their own personal bank accounts. It's a corporate account. If they did, they'd probably be able to deduct that from their personal income. I'm not sure where you got your information from. You might want to source that.Did you know that the federal government credit corporate income taxes to the personal income tax statistics based on share of income.
That's completely false. I don't know where you're getting that. Their income isn't tied at all on the corporations profitability. It's totally separtate. The very reason that you form a corporation is to avoid being taxed on the corporations income. If you are a sole proprietorship, then you'll get taxed on the companies income, but nobody that big is doing that.Of course the top 1% have a huge portion of the income, so they get a big chunk of the corporate income taxes credited to them
$350K is barely enough to live well?? Really? How many people in this country make $350K? Apparently we have a lot of people not living very well. I could live pretty damn well on that amount. I suppose it means that "well" is pretty subjective. You know, I don't think these people are too concerned over how "well" I'm living, so I have to ask...why should I concern myself over how "well" they're doing. If they can't make it on $350K...they have a serious problem.On that top 1% thing, I think it is a mistake to talk about the top 1%, the top 1% starts at $350k, barely enough to live well, and certainly not enough to considered in the group that makes Millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and billions
I don't understand it myself. Why they want to protect people that would throw them to the street if it meant they could squeeze one more dime in profit, is beyond me. I think it stems from the idea that someday in their life, they'll be part of the club and they dont' want to offend the rich because they think it'll hurt their chances. Then again, it might be that they don't want to upset them for fear of losing their jobs. There were a few company owners that told their employees that if they voted for Obama, they might have to lay them off. So..fear plays into it. And the desire to be a rich guy plays into it I suppose. I can't see any other logical reason to support people that look at you like a piece of meat.It is flippin' brilliant how these folks have gotten people to argue their case for them, against their own interests.
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.