Page 130 of 147 FirstFirst ... 3080120128129130131132140 ... LastLast
Results 1,291 to 1,300 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #1291
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The answer is in the history books and the preamble to the Constitution, read it. This country was built on equal opportunity not equal outcome. This country was about risk taking, about creating personal wealth, a small central govt. that assures equal opportunity but not equal outcome. Sorry you don't understand the concept.
    That's called a Straw Man. The fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument. Why is it a Straw Man?? Because NOBODY has ever suggested we must assure "Equal Outcome". Only equal opportunity which of course is a Liberal Idea in the first place. It's wonderful that you agree to what Liberals have argued for forever. But equal outcome is not one of them. It's logically ridiculous to even suggest such a thing considering that no two people have the same talents and should never be expected to produce equal results. So we can dismiss your Straw Man for the BS that it is.

    Next. the Preamble to the Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." What is there in this statement an endorsement of conservatism? The conservative movement didn't even exist until the 1950's. I see nothing. In fact I do see something at the very beginning calling for NOT a perfect union, but rather a MORE PERFECT union. That means we try to improve on what came before without every thinking that we've perfected it. It's a work in PROGRESS. Not something completely finished. The United States is the Great Experiment in liberal Democracy. It's work is never done. And it's problems are met by our ingenuity and originality and always in keeping with the rights of man. That included ridding ourselves of the cancer of slavery, and it's siblings Jim Crow and Segregation. It meant going against the original idea in the constitution of giving women the right to vote. It was not then, nor was the idea ever about creating personal wealth. The risk taking was obvious in the risk of Revolution itself. If we'd lost, men would hang. But wealth was NEVER the idea behind the founding of the country. It was always about freedom and liberty. So don't go hanging your ideology onto the founding. It was never there. It was announced in the Declaration of Independence. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and none of that is exlusive to creating wealth. If you want to try to get wealthy, go for it. But if you find success in being a great teacher, or a cop, or a fire fighter, or a soldier, then that's up to you and you aren't violating the purpose of the country to pursue it. You certainly aren't going to get wealthy doing those things.

    So I'm sorry that YOU don't get the concept. But I'm not surprised.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  2. #1292
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    Believe me brother, my skin is thick enough. i refrained from calling folks 'morons' or 'tools' after I advanced beyond the third grade...note in the upper left hand corner of the screen it says 'civility is a must'. Would you consider name calling civil?
    No. But what you call name calling is highly questionable. If I called you a dork, you could say that's name calling. But I haven't called you a dork. Have I? You needn't spend your time looking for personal attacks all the time. If you find that somebody is simply echoing the talking points of somebody else, are they not serving as a useful tool for those telling him what to say? Is that not the truth, and if so, why is the truth something to be offended by?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  3. #1293
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
    WTF does any of this have to do with anything in Adagio,s post that YOU QUOTED?

    Nothing. It's a strawman.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  4. #1294
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    No. But what you call name calling is highly questionable. If I called you a dork, you could say that's name calling. But I haven't called you a dork. Have I? You needn't spend your time looking for personal attacks all the time. If you find that somebody is simply echoing the talking points of somebody else, are they not serving as a useful tool for those telling him what to say? Is that not the truth, and if so, why is the truth something to be offended by?
    OH, Of course. I see your point now...moving on.
    "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!

  5. #1295
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,324

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    It is the "kitchen sink" Fenton, and if Child is honest, he/she would have to agree. And I already did rebut several of them. Go back and read. You would serve yourself better by avoiding posting a litany of talking points that nobody is going to take seriously since...that's all they are. In case you haven't been reading, I don't care about those. Nobody is ever going to agree on the other guys talking points. And they're always skewed and manipulated to affirm the ideological view. I don't give a crap about them. I already told you, I'm interested in why you're a conservative. Not because somebody told you to be one and be a puppet for them.
    I'm beginning to wonder if you know what the expression the kitchen sink means. They were quotes, data and factual analysis of how the Democrats and Clinton mandated the manufacture of and then the collapse of the sub-prime market. I suspect your'e calling it all "the kitchen sink" because you can't rebut it or it's simply over your head.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    I object to Conservative posts because there is no logic or basis for their arguments. All of your posts are "Based" on your talking points and you believe that they're true. So you are basing your post on the views of others with an axe to grind. What are their views based on? You say empircal data (?) and well reasoned and "true"(??) thought process?? According to who? What do you base that on since everything you're posting MUST have a basis to it. Fine. So what's the basis for the basis. They can't be their own basis. That's nothing but circular reasoning and an appeal to an authority that you have no reason to accept, other than your own bias toward their particular view. If I post a huge page full of talking points to square off in a mock duel of opposing talking poinst...what is gained by that. You won't accept any that I put up, and you know it. So do I. It's an exercise in self gratification and that's a bore. That doesn't tell me anything about how you think or why you think that way. You engage in micro analysis of an issue that gets completely ridiculous and I have no interest in that kind of thing. Maybe someone else will entertain you on that. It has no appeal to me. That's a kind way of saying that your posts bore me. The bottom line here in case you haven't figured it out yet, is that your posts don't justify your arguments. They're appeals to authority and appeals to authority are a logical fallacy. Argumentum Ad Verecundium. A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, "To determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents." Or again, "To find out whether or not sludge-mining really is endangering the Tuskogee salamander's breeding grounds, we interviewed the supervisors of the sludge-mines, who declared there is no problem." Indeed, it is important to get "both viewpoints" on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. Appeals to authority are always invalid. The reason is simpel: Even an expert can be wrong.
    You object to Conservative post because they blow your liberal generic drool out of the water. They counter your rambling hypocrisy with truth and and objective evidence. That's why you object to them. You object to them because you have yet to post one paragraph that holds any semblance of objective information or empirical data and when challenged to a point by point rebut you post something like the above. It must be embarrassing. Again, rebut my post on the sub-prime collapse point by point if your'e capable, we're waiting. Oh and with data, not generic barely incoherent rambling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    I have offered YOU in particular a challenge. It's very simple. No talking points required. Why are you a conservative? You have yet to answer that. So if you can't tell me that much...why would I waste my time rebutting talking points given to you by somebody else, when you can't even tell me why you accept them?
    Well that's easy, not as easy as proving your insistence prattling nonsense wrong, but easy enough. I'm a Conservative because I was raised correctly, I am above average intelligence, I'm not susceptible to empty platitudes and ridiculous political promises, I value my freedom and liberty, I refuse to accept the Liberal concept of community over individualism and I understand that you build stronger societies by empowering the individual.

    I believe in private property rights, I don't believe in theft and I am not of such weak character and constitution that I need a Government to watch over me, feed me, clothe me, pay my bills or manage my healthcare.

    My concern over the well being of our troops does not disappear when the least educated elect the least qualified to run our Country. I believe people should be held responsible for their choices. I believe in free market principles and realize the liberal concept of fairness is actually just organized theft on a National scale. I'm not prone to irrational envy of those who have more than me, nor do I think that envy gives me the moral authority to confiscate their property.

    I am not so dimwitted that I would be in favor of enacting laws, policies or mandates that would counter a man's innate instincts of self interest and self preservation. I'm intelligent enough to realize when a Government gives a man the freedom to explore his limits and meet his highest personal expectations society as a whole will benefit. I understand that our Constitution is not a "living breathing document". If it moved and changed to fit the whims of every political leader IT WOULDN'T BE A CONSTITUTION.

    I believe our ability, knowledge, intelligence and character should determine our position, regardless the color of our skin. I think affirmative action policies are the definition of racism. I believe character, honesty and integrity are important characteristics when considering whether a politician is qualified to represent me and my family. More importantly I think character, honesty and integrity are crucial characteristics in a human being.

    I believe a strong family unit composed of a Husband and Wife raises a smarter, happier and better adjusted child. I don't believe in the right of a woman to kill her unborn child. It's not solely her body anymore, there are two heartbeats, two humans, two bodies.

    And finally I'm Conservative because I use the truth to shape my ideology, not the other way around.
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  6. #1296
    Educator
    CaptinSarcastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 03:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,199

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    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.



    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.
    I am getting that from the CBO.

    When the CBO calculates tax payment distribution across the quintiles, top 10%, top 5%, top 1%, they make the assumption that capital pays corporate taxes and the people with the most income have the most capital, so are credited in their distribution tables as having paid those corporate taxes. They do NOT pay those corporate taxes and the formula is merely an assumption, but because of this assumption, the highest earning groups are simply given credit for having paid those taxes.

    From the CBO directly:

    "Far less consensus exists about how to attribute corporate income taxes (and taxes on capital income generally). In this analysis, CBO assumes that corporate income taxes are borne by owners of capital in proportion to their income from interest, dividends, capital gains, and rents. Over the long term, however, some models suggest that at least part of the burden falls on labor income."

    CBO | Average Federal Taxes by Income Group

    Do you see?

    As to the $350k not being much, I mean that in relative terms. Ninety percent of the people in the top 1% earn under $1 Million and they earn about half of the total of the whole 1%, so the top 1/10 of 1% earns the bulk.

    The people who make up the bottom 90% of the top 1% are not hedgefund managers, they are often not capitalists (actual function of earning money with capital, not ideological position) at but earn with their labor instead. These people pay much closer to the marginal rates than the top of that group does. The top of that group pays well under 15% in total federal taxes, which is why this tiny group that earns 17% of all income pays only 11% of all federal taxes.

    They are the American aristocracy, the oligarchy, the nobles. The people who make the rules for their own benefit.

  7. #1297
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Care to cite that? :P He worked on court cases for Community Groups issuing dsicrimination complaints against banks based on CRA reports.


    Somoene needs a reminder. These are quotes from you.


    See, thats on you. He wasnt addressing me. Timeline: You did it first and I called you on it.


    Your posts are littered with them. You just have been involved in confirmation bias for so long you dont even see it.


    You act like you are something new. You aren't. Your philosophy is riddled with unintended consequences and forcing human behavior instead of adapting to it. Thing is social conservatism does it too. I can recognize that. I am more of a fiscal conservative and social libertarian than anything. I recognize the flaws in both sides of the argument. Im certainly not wedded to defending one side or the other's bad actors in politics.


    Quit whining, I will address what I want to in a post.

    Care to cite that? :P He worked on court cases for Community Groups issuing dsicrimination complaints against banks based on CRA reports.
    I don't have to cite it. You made the allegation. Is this your support? You cited that he worked on court cases for community groups on civil rights issues. I'm surprised that if you got that much you didn't learn the name of the law firm. It was Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard, a law firm known for social activism and for helping the poor. Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 with a degree from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at the firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. He helped represent clients in civil and voting rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a case before a federal appellate court, and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration. He did Pro-bono work "In my legal practice," he wrote, "I work mostly with churches and community groups, men and women who quietly build grocery stores and health clinics in the inner city, and housing for the poor." Obviously they can't afford extravagant legal fees. "He was doing the work that any first-year or second-year associate would do," Miner said. "In litigation, he was doing basic research and writing memos. . . . In the first couple years he would play a very minor role. He wouldn't know [much], so he would take the lead from whoever was supervising his work." He did have some noteworthy cases. Among them, Obama filed a major 1995 suit that successfully forced Illinois to enforce the 1993 federal Motor Voter law, which sought to make it easier for people to register to vote. Obama's law days effective but brief - Los Angeles Times

    Your suggestion that he made big bucks as an attorney are totally false. His money came from publishing. He made several million from the sales of his books.

    Somoene needs a reminder. These are quotes from you.
    You find those personal attacks? Boy you would have been eaten up on Politico. There are a lot of sarcastic digs. I admit that. But I don't think that sarcasm or sardonicism qualifies as a personal attack. But if you have problems with that, I think you're simply looking for anything to get you out of a situation that you can't resolve with a strong argument. Or is that a "talking point too"?

    See, thats on you. He wasnt addressing me. Timeline: You did it first and I called you on it.
    OHhhhhhhhhhhhhh....so that's the difference. You call me on a "kitchen sink" approach, and later when your buddy loads up with a monster post created from "talking points", including not just the "kitchen sink", but the entire bathroom as well, you have no problem. That's fine...because, he wasn't addressing you. But earlier you claimed you could chime in whenever you felt like it...so what difference does it mean if he's talking to me or to you? It's still the Kitchen sink isn't it? The timeline has no bearing on whether its a kitchen sink approach. That's a hypocritical approach you're taking. You know that. You aren't stupid. It's completely selective outrage.

    Your posts are littered with them. You just have been involved in confirmation bias for so long you dont even see it.
    Ah Rhetoric. Well at least it's mine. And not somebody elses like some other people. I generally write complete thoughts on a subject. You should try it sometime.

    You act like you are something new. You aren't. Your philosophy is riddled with unintended consequences and forcing human behavior instead of adapting to it.
    Nope. Just new to this forum. And your comment shows that you know nothing of my philosophy. NOTHING. I posted a question to you. I already know I could be wrong. Do you?? You've avoided answering that question. Why? Everything has unintended consequences. The object is to minimize them and you aren't doing that. In fact, I'd say that you aren't even examining the unintended consequences of your own ideology. We can see them throughout our history. By subjugating an entire race of people to America's only aristocracy in the south,, for the economic prosperity for another race of people, your conservatism inflicted untold damage, pain and suffering that was justified by the ideology of conservative values. Unintended consequences? Oh well. There are unintended consequences to embedding racism into the very constitution of this country. One very obvious consequence is that we would inevitably end up in civil war. Conservative values sought to continue slavery. Liberal values sought to end it. There is nothing in the conservative values that I find appealing at all. An ideology that justifies racism and bigotry has no appeal to me. And please don't tell me that that's all over now. The south was conservative then, as it is today and always has been. Conservatism always resists change. Liberalism is always a challenge to those values, and rightly so. You can't demonstrate values as true. So for those that find truth itself as the only value worth pursuing, conservatism is found wanting.

    Quit whining, I will address what I want to in a post.
    It's not whining. Find another verb to use. It's pointing out that in an entire paragraph you found one thing to bold in order to make a feeble point. That's whining.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  8. #1298
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    I'm beginning to wonder if you know what the expression the kitchen sink means. They were quotes, data and factual analysis of how the Democrats and Clinton mandated the manufacture of and then the collapse of the sub-prime market. I suspect your'e calling it all "the kitchen sink" because you can't rebut it or it's simply over your head.

    You object to Conservative post because they blow your liberal generic drool out of the water. They counter your rambling hypocrisy with truth and and objective evidence. That's why you object to them. You object to them because you have yet to post one paragraph that holds any semblance of objective information or empirical data and when challenged to a point by point rebut you post something like the above. It must be embarrassing. Again, rebut my post on the sub-prime collapse point by point if your'e capable, we're waiting. Oh and with data, not generic barely incoherent rambling.



    Well that's easy, not as easy as proving your insistence prattling nonsense wrong, but easy enough. I'm a Conservative because I was raised correctly, I am above average intelligence, I'm not susceptible to empty platitudes and ridiculous political promises, I value my freedom and liberty, I refuse to accept the Liberal concept of community over individualism and I understand that you build stronger societies by empowering the individual.

    I believe in private property rights, I don't believe in theft and I am not of such weak character and constitution that I need a Government to watch over me, feed me, clothe me, pay my bills or manage my healthcare.

    My concern over the well being of our troops does not disappear when the least educated elect the least qualified to run our Country. I believe people should be held responsible for their choices. I believe in free market principles and realize the liberal concept of fairness is actually just organized theft on a National scale. I'm not prone to irrational envy of those who have more than me, nor do I think that envy gives me the moral authority to confiscate their property.

    I am not so dimwitted that I would be in favor of enacting laws, policies or mandates that would counter a man's innate instincts of self interest and self preservation. I'm intelligent enough to realize when a Government gives a man the freedom to explore his limits and meet his highest personal expectations society as a whole will benefit. I understand that our Constitution is not a "living breathing document". If it moved and changed to fit the whims of every political leader IT WOULDN'T BE A CONSTITUTION.

    I believe our ability, knowledge, intelligence and character should determine our position, regardless the color of our skin. I think affirmative action policies are the definition of racism. I believe character, honesty and integrity are important characteristics when considering whether a politician is qualified to represent me and my family. More importantly I think character, honesty and integrity are crucial characteristics in a human being.

    I believe a strong family unit composed of a Husband and Wife raises a smarter, happier and better adjusted child. I don't believe in the right of a woman to kill her unborn child. It's not solely her body anymore, there are two heartbeats, two humans, two bodies.

    And finally I'm Conservative because I use the truth to shape my ideology, not the other way around.
    I'm beginning to wonder if you know what the expression the kitchen sink means.
    Yeah. I'm well aware of it. I have a decent vocabulary.

    They were quotes, data and factual analysis of how the Democrats and Clinton mandated the manufacture of and then the collapse of the sub-prime market. I suspect your'e calling it all "the kitchen sink" because you can't rebut it or it's simply over your head.
    Well your suspicions would be wrong. Nobody wants to wade through a pile of crap to deal with you. Thats' WHY it's called the Kitchen Sink. You're tossing way too much garbage in your comment. Nobody is going to take the time to wade through all of it to satisfy your needs to seem relevant. Maybe some will, but they mean nothing to me, and if I did take the time you wouldn't believe it anyway. I told you before, I didn't come here to toss out somebody elses ideas. Obviously you have none of your own or you wouldn't need them. You're clearly over your head on this.

    That's why you object to them
    I object to them because I think they're stupid. I have no interest in them. And they dont come from you. You need them because you can't make a case on your own. And...above all, I don't play in your ballpark. You play in mine.

    Well that's easy, not as easy as proving your insistence prattling nonsense wrong, but easy enough. I'm a Conservative because I was raised correctly, I am above average intelligence, I'm not susceptible to empty platitudes and ridiculous political promises, I value my freedom and liberty, I refuse to accept the Liberal concept of community over individualism and I understand that you build stronger societies by empowering the individual.
    Well...finally. But tell me, why should I believe you? I'm interested in the truth, not a bunch of things that you can't demonstrate, so can you demonstrate for me right now, how everything you just said is true? I mean, how do I know that you were raised correctly? Do you have some empirical data or evidence to show that? You claim to have above average intelligence. I haven't seen any demonstration of that either. You say this: "I'm not susceptible to empty platitudes and ridiculous political promises," how do I know that's true? You probably voted for Bush. That would disprove that claim. Just because you say it is? Why would I believe you if you can't demonstrate it? You say this: "I value my freedom and liberty," ..well that's really special. So do I so that's a wash. Valuing freedom and liberty is not exclusive to conservatism despite what you may have been told from your talking points.

    I refuse to accept the Liberal concept of community over individualism and I understand that you build stronger societies by empowering the individual.
    That's a logical fallacy that somebody with an above average intelligence should know. You present an either/or situation. Either you accept a concept of community OR you accept individualism, while overlooking that fact that you can have both. It's not an either/or situation. The fact is that you live within a society, unless you decide to live on some island. As such you have responsibilities to that society. That doesn't mean your own idividualism can not be asserted. We all do it every day. So your idea that you can't have the one by accepting the other is false. Pretty easy to understand with an above average intelligence.

    My concern over the well being of our troops does not disappear when the least educated elect the least qualified to run our Country
    Except when you voted for Bush. Your concern for our troops is very nice. Mine and all my friends were there for them during the Bush years when a totally unqualified man was elected. So you have no monopoly on that.

    I am not so dimwitted that I would be in favor of enacting laws, policies or mandates that would counter a man's innate instincts of self interest and self preservation.
    So you aren't a Christian then? I thought conservatives embraced Christian teachings. Apparently not.

    I understand that our Constitution is not a "living breathing document". If it moved and changed to fit the whims of every political leader IT WOULDN'T BE A CONSTITUTION
    Why? What makes that true? Our framers embedded racism into our constitution. You know that right? Are you saying that you embrace that? That this little flaw shouldn't have been corrected? The constitution is a framework. That's why we call these guys the "Framers". They couldnt account for, or think of everything, so they created a great outline for how we would function. But if you think that these forward thinking men didn't grasp that future generations would encounter things that they couldn't imagine, you're naive. If they didn't, they wouldn't be forward thinking would they?

    And finally I'm Conservative because I use the truth to shape my ideology, not the other way around.
    Can you demonstrate for me that 1) you use the truth, and 2) that your ideology can demonstrate what makes itself true? If you could, I might even join you. The problem you have now is demonstrating that you use truth, and that your ideology demonstrates it? Telling me that doesn't demonstrate it. It's a statement that you can't back up. Your beliefs mean nothing to me. I don't care about them at all. I am interested in the Truth, and you haven't shown me anything here but a series of beliefs, and platitudes. I don't care about your beliefs in private property or the family and what you think about that. Beliefs don't demonstrate truth. What are they based on? You've offered a series of one belief after another, each one based on something without a basis to support it. Again...I don't care about beliefs. I do care about truth. You say that you use truth to shape your ideology. Ok. I get that. But there is a problem with that. You can't possess Truth. You can't hold it. You have no monopoly on it. It's not some object that you can hold in your hand. And another problem is that all ideologies hold their ideas as true again without demonstrating that they are. They are all man made, and man is fallible. Can your ideology be wrong? Is that possible? Or do you expect me to "believe" that it's infallible? Why would I when I know that it's prone to error? You tell me that truth informs your ideology but you can't demonstrate truth for me. So something that you can't demonstrate as true dictates your ideology? So, you have values that you can't demonstrate as true? That's interesting. Can you demonstrate objective truth for me? I don't think you can do that. I for one don’t think values can be demonstrated as true. Is not that hypocritical? If you accept that humans have values, then it’s their values. They are not dependent on demonstration, otherwise, why would we consider them "our" values? Truth is determined by human judgment or truth is determined unequivocally by demonstration. It can't be both. Which is it? Obviously you cannot demonstrate the truth of your values which make up your ideology, so why would I be interested in them or it? In fact, why would you?

    If you claim that your ideology is based on something, then you are admitting that things require a basis. If everything requires a basis, then what is the basis for your basis? It can't be based on itself. No theory or ideology can use itself as it's own justification.

    I'd say your conservatism is flawed. Recognizing the flaws is what brings you closer to the truth. If that's really what matters to you.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  9. #1299
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    I am getting that from the CBO.

    When the CBO calculates tax payment distribution across the quintiles, top 10%, top 5%, top 1%, they make the assumption that capital pays corporate taxes and the people with the most income have the most capital, so are credited in their distribution tables as having paid those corporate taxes. They do NOT pay those corporate taxes and the formula is merely an assumption, but because of this assumption, the highest earning groups are simply given credit for having paid those taxes.

    From the CBO directly:

    "Far less consensus exists about how to attribute corporate income taxes (and taxes on capital income generally). In this analysis, CBO assumes that corporate income taxes are borne by owners of capital in proportion to their income from interest, dividends, capital gains, and rents. Over the long term, however, some models suggest that at least part of the burden falls on labor income."

    CBO | Average Federal Taxes by Income Group

    Do you see?

    As to the $350k not being much, I mean that in relative terms. Ninety percent of the people in the top 1% earn under $1 Million and they earn about half of the total of the whole 1%, so the top 1/10 of 1% earns the bulk.

    The people who make up the bottom 90% of the top 1% are not hedgefund managers, they are often not capitalists (actual function of earning money with capital, not ideological position) at but earn with their labor instead. These people pay much closer to the marginal rates than the top of that group does. The top of that group pays well under 15% in total federal taxes, which is why this tiny group that earns 17% of all income pays only 11% of all federal taxes.

    They are the American aristocracy, the oligarchy, the nobles. The people who make the rules for their own benefit.
    Wow. This is really astonishing to me. So these people are credited with paying the corporate taxes, or at least that's the assumption? And they offset their actual income by claiming that they paid the corporate taxes? The corporation pays it and they are credited against their own private taxes??? The Oligarchy is here isn't it? It is indeed the American Aristocracy. All that's missing are the slaves.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  10. #1300
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,816

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    I don't have to cite it. You made the allegation. Is this your support? You cited that he worked on court cases for community groups on civil rights issues. I'm surprised that if you got that much you didn't learn the name of the law firm. It was Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard, a law firm known for social activism and for helping the poor. Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 with a degree from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at the firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. He helped represent clients in civil and voting rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a case before a federal appellate court, and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration. He did Pro-bono work "In my legal practice," he wrote, "I work mostly with churches and community groups, men and women who quietly build grocery stores and health clinics in the inner city, and housing for the poor." Obviously they can't afford extravagant legal fees. "He was doing the work that any first-year or second-year associate would do," Miner said. "In litigation, he was doing basic research and writing memos. . . . In the first couple years he would play a very minor role. He wouldn't know [much], so he would take the lead from whoever was supervising his work." He did have some noteworthy cases. Among them, Obama filed a major 1995 suit that successfully forced Illinois to enforce the 1993 federal Motor Voter law, which sought to make it easier for people to register to vote. Obama's law days effective but brief - Los Angeles Times
    See this is why I think Chicago pols are crooked (look, same paper even) :
    Obama donor received a state grant - latimes.com
    WASHINGTON—
    After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client -- a longtime political supporter.

    Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell's firm that eventually totaled $112,000. A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.

    Killerspin specializes in table tennis, running tournaments nationwide and selling its own line of equipment and apparel and DVD recordings of the competitions. With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.

    Obama's staff said the senator advocated only for the first year's grant -- which ended up being $20,000, not $50,000. The day after Obama wrote his letter urging the awarding of the state funds, Obama's U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Your suggestion that he made big bucks as an attorney are totally false. His money came from publishing. He made several million from the sales of his books.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    You find those personal attacks? Boy you would have been eaten up on Politico. There are a lot of sarcastic digs. I admit that. But I don't think that sarcasm or sardonicism qualifies as a personal attack. But if you have problems with that, I think you're simply looking for anything to get you out of a situation that you can't resolve with a strong argument. Or is that a "talking point too"?
    This is not Politico. In case you havent read the forum rules, and judging by your posts, you havent:
    3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling - To bait someone in a general sense is to make a comment with a purposeful intent to coerce some form of response from the individual. In some cases this device can be a useful tool of debate, eliciting responses to highlight a point or reveal an underlying truth concerning someone’s argument. However, in other cases the intent of the bait is less focused on debating. “Flamebaiting” is making statements intended to cause an angry or emotional response/flame from the person. Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”. This is deliberate act of making statements with an aim of diverting the topic of a thread significantly from its main focus. These negative forms of baiting constitute a rules violation that can potentially lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

    "Originally, flame meant to carry forth in a passionate manner in the spirit of honorable debate. Flames most often involved the use of flowery language and flaming well was an art form. More recently flame has come to refer to "any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude."[google] In a forum with sensitive topics such as this, derogatory flaming is bound to happen. Common sense will prevail, yet this is not an invitation to flame. e.g. "You stupid *****ing moron," is completely unacceptable and could lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

    Trolling is a diversionary tactic of those who “deliberately exploit tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people” or those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions. [Wikipedia]. Ignorance, bias, and genuine dissent are not trolling, though at times they may appear similar due to the disingenuous nature of some trolls. Trolling is not allowed and can potentially lead to the suspension of posting privileges.

    4. Don't Be A Jerk (DBAJ) - This simply means what it sounds like.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    OHhhhhhhhhhhhhh....so that's the difference. You call me on a "kitchen sink" approach, and later when your buddy loads up with a monster post created from "talking points", including not just the "kitchen sink", but the entire bathroom as well, you have no problem. That's fine...because, he wasn't addressing you. But earlier you claimed you could chime in whenever you felt like it...so what difference does it mean if he's talking to me or to you? It's still the Kitchen sink isn't it? The timeline has no bearing on whether its a kitchen sink approach. That's a hypocritical approach you're taking. You know that. You aren't stupid. It's completely selective outrage.
    The timeline has every bearing. You did it in response to me, I commented on it, Fenton did it in response to you, let me know the part where I have to comment on what he said in response to you, if I dont want to. Please stop baiting, you arent any good at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Ah Rhetoric. Well at least it's mine. And not somebody elses like some other people. I generally write complete thoughts on a subject. You should try it sometime.
    More baiting with an ad hom tossed in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Nope. Just new to this forum. And your comment shows that you know nothing of my philosophy. NOTHING. I posted a question to you. I already know I could be wrong. Do you?? You've avoided answering that question. Why? Everything has unintended consequences. The object is to minimize them and you aren't doing that. In fact, I'd say that you aren't even examining the unintended consequences of your own ideology. We can see them throughout our history. By subjugating an entire race of people to America's only aristocracy in the south,, for the economic prosperity for another race of people, your conservatism inflicted untold damage, pain and suffering that was justified by the ideology of conservative values. Unintended consequences? Oh well. There are unintended consequences to embedding racism into the very constitution of this country. One very obvious consequence is that we would inevitably end up in civil war. Conservative values sought to continue slavery. Liberal values sought to end it. There is nothing in the conservative values that I find appealing at all. An ideology that justifies racism and bigotry has no appeal to me. And please don't tell me that that's all over now. The south was conservative then, as it is today and always has been. Conservatism always resists change. Liberalism is always a challenge to those values, and rightly so. You can't demonstrate values as true. So for those that find truth itself as the only value worth pursuing, conservatism is found wanting.
    Except Liberalism has become the party of more and more government. Any challenge to government authority, no matter how recklessly that authority is asserted has become a challenge to liberalism. Liberalism is now resisting change....to government. Large writ guilt by association with the slavery argument, but its not very original, nor totally true---looks like a talking point :P

    Values change, mores change, quick changes of either is not always good. The modern deterioration of family cohesiveness is a good example of this.

    You do know politcal movements and their actors evolve dont you? Modern conservatism is not at all about racism, or slavery. As for war, whats going on Syria again?

    Im not anywhere near as strident as you about being right. So I think you might be projecting a bit with bolded.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    It's not whining. Find another verb to use. It's pointing out that in an entire paragraph you found one thing to bold in order to make a feeble point. That's whining.
    Oh yeah, its whining.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •