Page 132 of 147 FirstFirst ... 3282122130131132133134142 ... LastLast
Results 1,311 to 1,320 of 1467

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

  1. #1311
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: SOTU Address:[W: 378]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    LOL !!

    First I'm pretty sure he is a "she". Anyone with a room temperature IQ should be able to figure that one out.

    Note Addagio's efforts to do just about anything and everything to avoid discussing specific data and when challenged simply maxes out the post character count and just repeats the innane and superficial barely coherent rhetoric that was in the last post she was responsible for.

    Look I realize that empty fillibusters and generic plattitudes impress you, but it doesn't equate to someone' ass getting handed to them. It actually means theyv'e admitted their failure at debating on the merits of their argument and have moved on to nonsensical rhetoric.

    Since Addagio's too scared to address my challenge of rebutting my earlier sub-prime post, maybe you would like to take a shot at it.

    You said that Addagio didn't address any of your comments. What comments do you feel that he hasn't addressed? It looks to me that he addressed MORE than what was put on his plate. He didn’t address any of the canned rhetoric that you throw in a post as fact but it looks to me that he addressed what he feels was the central point of every post.

    How’s it feel at room temp? .....................Gender.
    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

  2. #1312
    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
    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.
    No, they don't pay it and they don't get to claim it any real way, but for statistical purposes, the CBO adds corporate taxes to their personal income taxes. It is ONLY for statistical purposes, but whenever someone says the rich pay some percentage of income taxes, not only are the income taxes only about half of all federal taxes, but they are padding the stats by adding corporate taxes received to the amounts paid by the highest earners.

  3. #1313
    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
    See this is why I think Chicago pols are crooked (look, same paper even) :
    Obama donor received a state grant - latimes.com






    This is not Politico. In case you havent read the forum rules, and judging by your posts, you havent:






    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.



    More baiting with an ad hom tossed in.



    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.





    Oh yeah, its whining.

    See this is why I think Chicago pols are crooked
    "Business relationships between lawmakers and people with government interests are not illegal or uncommon in Illinois or other states with a part-time Legislature, where lawmakers supplement their state salaries with income from the private sector. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, who provided The Times with details of Obama's compensation from EKI, said Obama did nothing wrong acting on behalf of Killerspin. He said the state senator simply wrote a letter backing a worthy project developed by a constituent.

    When Blackwell sought backing for his table tennis tournament in 2002, other politicians, including U.S. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, offered support for the event. Initially, the idea of table tennis receiving funds from a state tourism program -- designed to encourage overnight visits to Illinois -- was met with skepticism by one Republican state official. But the funding was granted at the $20,000 level that first year, grew to $200,000 in 2003 and totaled $100,000 in 2004.

    Six months later Blackwell hired Obama to serve as general counsel for his tech company, EKI, which had been launched a few years earlier.

    The monthly retainer paid by EKI was sent to the law firm that Obama was affiliated with at the time, currently known as Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where he worked part time when he wasn't tending to legislative duties. The business arrived at an especially fortuitous time because, as the law firm's senior partner, Judson Miner, put it, "it was a very dry period here," meaning that the ebb and flow of cases left little work for Obama and cash was tight.

    The entire EKI retainer went to Obama, who was considered "of counsel" to the firm, according to details provided to The Times by the Obama campaign and confirmed by Miner. Blackwell said he had no knowledge of Obama's finances and hired Obama solely based on his abilities. "His personal financial situation was not and is not my concern," Blackwell said. "I hired Barack because he is a brilliant person and a lawyer with great insight and judgment."

    Obama's tax returns show that he made no money from his law practice in 2000, the year of his unsuccessful run for a congressional seat. But that changed in 2001, when Obama reported $98,158 income for providing legal services. Of that, $80,000 was from Blackwell's company.

    In 2002, the state senator reported $34,491 from legal services and speeches. Of that, $32,000 came from the EKI legal assignment, which ended in April 2002 by mutual agreement, as Obama ceased the practice of law and looked ahead to the possibility of running for the U.S. Senate. .

    Blackwell said that "Barack worked extensive hours advising the company on compliance and human resource issues," negotiated contracts, reviewed confidentiality agreements and provided reports on topics requested by the company's senior management. Obama was not involved in soliciting city or state contracts for EKI, Blackwell said, and there was an agreement that he would not contact any government agencies.

    It seems you left this stuff out. More selective outrage. Nothing illegal here, and no vast fortune accumulated.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  4. #1314
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,791

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    "Business relationships between lawmakers and people with government interests are not illegal or uncommon in Illinois or other states with a part-time Legislature, where lawmakers supplement their state salaries with income from the private sector. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, who provided The Times with details of Obama's compensation from EKI, said Obama did nothing wrong acting on behalf of Killerspin. He said the state senator simply wrote a letter backing a worthy project developed by a constituent.

    When Blackwell sought backing for his table tennis tournament in 2002, other politicians, including U.S. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, offered support for the event. Initially, the idea of table tennis receiving funds from a state tourism program -- designed to encourage overnight visits to Illinois -- was met with skepticism by one Republican state official. But the funding was granted at the $20,000 level that first year, grew to $200,000 in 2003 and totaled $100,000 in 2004.

    Six months later Blackwell hired Obama to serve as general counsel for his tech company, EKI, which had been launched a few years earlier.

    The monthly retainer paid by EKI was sent to the law firm that Obama was affiliated with at the time, currently known as Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where he worked part time when he wasn't tending to legislative duties. The business arrived at an especially fortuitous time because, as the law firm's senior partner, Judson Miner, put it, "it was a very dry period here," meaning that the ebb and flow of cases left little work for Obama and cash was tight.

    The entire EKI retainer went to Obama, who was considered "of counsel" to the firm, according to details provided to The Times by the Obama campaign and confirmed by Miner. Blackwell said he had no knowledge of Obama's finances and hired Obama solely based on his abilities. "His personal financial situation was not and is not my concern," Blackwell said. "I hired Barack because he is a brilliant person and a lawyer with great insight and judgment."

    Obama's tax returns show that he made no money from his law practice in 2000, the year of his unsuccessful run for a congressional seat. But that changed in 2001, when Obama reported $98,158 income for providing legal services. Of that, $80,000 was from Blackwell's company.

    In 2002, the state senator reported $34,491 from legal services and speeches. Of that, $32,000 came from the EKI legal assignment, which ended in April 2002 by mutual agreement, as Obama ceased the practice of law and looked ahead to the possibility of running for the U.S. Senate. .

    Blackwell said that "Barack worked extensive hours advising the company on compliance and human resource issues," negotiated contracts, reviewed confidentiality agreements and provided reports on topics requested by the company's senior management. Obama was not involved in soliciting city or state contracts for EKI, Blackwell said, and there was an agreement that he would not contact any government agencies.

    It seems you left this stuff out. More selective outrage. Nothing illegal here, and no vast fortune accumulated.
    Of course they arent going to admit it, either side. The appearance of quid pro quo is definitely there. Obama helped them with something, they hired him. Appearance of impropiety is the first step to actually finding it. Your bias is talking, not your reasoning.

    Before you go there, yes, I dont like it when republicans do the same thing.

  5. #1315
    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
    See this is why I think Chicago pols are crooked (look, same paper even) :
    Obama donor received a state grant - latimes.com






    This is not Politico. In case you havent read the forum rules, and judging by your posts, you havent:






    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.



    More baiting with an ad hom tossed in.



    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.





    Oh yeah, its whining.

    The timeline has every bearing.
    No it doesn't.

    You did it in response to me, I commented on it, Fenton did it in response to you,
    So what? More nonsense. Fenton does it all the time. It's still the Kitchen Sink no matter when he did it. If you object to what you call the "kitchen sink" then what possible difference can it make when it's done, or who does it? It still amounts to the thing you have an issue with. It's called selective outrage.

    let me know the part where I have to comment on what he said in response to you,
    You never did. That's the point. When you went after me on that very thing, and I pointed his post out to you...crickets. You're simply selective in your criticism.

    Please stop baiting, you arent any good at it.
    ...he said while baiting me.

    Im not anywhere near as strident as you about being right. So I think you might be projecting a bit with bolded.
    That doesn't answer the question. It's really very simple. Either it's possible that you could be wrong, or it isn't. Stop dancing.

    Large writ guilt by association with the slavery argument, but its not very original, nor totally true---looks like a talking point :P
    History is a talking point? Really? I've never needed a set of talking points from the DNC to understand history. It's not just slavery that's associated with conservatism, but everything else that came out of it. Jim Crow, Segregation, right up to the Birthers of today. It's embedded into the ideology. Conservatism always strives to maintain institutions, and they can't let go of that one.

    Values change, mores change, quick changes of either is not always good.
    Conservative values rarely change. And the last thing they want is to "liberalize" those values. But "values" can't be demonstrated as true. And we aren't talking about "quick changes". It's been a couple hundred years now with regards to race. Maybe it's time to put that aside for good. It neither serves you well, nor the country.

    You do know politcal movements and their actors evolve dont you?
    Hehe...yes. To evolve is a forward movement. Not backward.

    I've posted this before. Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. Conservatism is reactionary by its nature. Liberalism is progressive. Conservatism is always a reaction to progressive movement.

    Oh yeah... pointing out that you're complaining over something within an entire paragraph that YOU decide to quote in its entirety...Is a matter of your whining over one sentence. It's nonsense. If you don't agree with the sentence all you really need to do is highlight it.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  6. #1316
    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
    Of course they arent going to admit it, either side. The appearance of quid pro quo is definitely there. Obama helped them with something, they hired him. Appearance of impropiety is the first step to actually finding it. Your bias is talking, not your reasoning.

    Before you go there, yes, I dont like it when republicans do the same thing.
    He was a lawyer. And he was hired. And he got paid. And he didn't get paid a fortune. There is no impropiety. But its not surprising that a conservative would look for one. And yes, it is reason. Unless you can demonstrate something wrong in any of that, then it's hogwash. Apparently you can't.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  7. #1317
    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
    Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE for the general welfare. You cannot seem to grasp the concept.

    Well then, congratulations, you are getting the country you want, high unemployment, high debt, low economic growth, and dependence on a large central govt.
    Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE for the general welfare. You cannot seem to grasp the concept.
    You failed to comment on your idea that we want to assure equal outcome. Why is that? Never mind. It's a false statement and you should know that. And we dont' provide for the general welfare. In fact, all forms of welfare are highly selective. It's not something provided to the general population. At the time of the constitution we had about 4 million population. Today we have 315 Million. We can't exist the way we did in the 1700's. And we can't let people in the wealthiest nation on earth, starve or walk around dying in our streets.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  8. #1318
    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 j-mac View Post
    In reading Adagio's responses in here one theme seems crystal clear. That is that he, as other liberals do, believe that they don't need the amendment process to change the constitution, or declare a "right"..... This I believe was always the goal ever since Marbury.
    You don't need to pass an amendment everytime you pass a law. Our laws already fall under existing amendments. If you are going to make a change in the constitution, of course you go through the Amendment process. So your comment is false.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  9. #1319
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: SOTU Address:[W: 378]

    Quote Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
    You said that Addagio didn't address any of your comments. What comments do you feel that he hasn't addressed? It looks to me that he addressed MORE than what was put on his plate. He didn’t address any of the canned rhetoric that you throw in a post as fact but it looks to me that he addressed what he feels was the central point of every post.

    How’s it feel at room temp? .....................Gender.
    Any of the following ...
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1061497453

    ADG'S response...
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1061497453
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  10. #1320
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: SOTU Address:[W: 378]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    You post an incoherent rambling THESIS to anther poster (obvious Child) and you think that Addagio shoulda respond-TWICE. You’re a real piece of work.Bytheway, have you ever figured the gender thingy out yet?

    OH god, i had such high hopes for you too. sad panda.
    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

Posting Permissions

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