Page 139 of 147 FirstFirst ... 3989129137138139140141 ... LastLast
Results 1,381 to 1,390 of 1467

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

  1. #1381
    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 Jack Hays View Post
    Whine and wriggle all you want, the fact remains that they pay at least their share.
    I think for the most part, people making under a million do, but people in that top of the top group, not even close.

    No whining, no wiggling, just facts.

  2. #1382
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Then you should be able to tell me how and what it is that's been manipulated...both historical and a more personal level. Specifically. Can you?
    The Reagan speech. Im sure you can corroborate the liberal race baiting and dog whistle theories with actual quotes from the parties involved in setting up the event right? Oh. You cant. Well then thats inferrence not proof, and hence manipulation. Im not picking through the entirety of the hard left sewage you call a post anymore, as I said before you just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    But your ideology and the Party you vote for...does. There's a reason why blacks voted over 90% for Dems. Latino's at 72%. Gays at 98%, Women at about 60%. I'm not saying that you do. I just have to ask why you would align yourself with a party that is quite open about their views on minorities? Do you somehow think that these people can't grasp the policies put forth by Republicans and Conservatives and how they impact lives in a very targeted way?
    McCain and Rubio working on immigration reform that can pass. Several notable Republicans signing onto the gay marriage brief. How about the HHS flap over contraceptives and the Catholic Church, that may matter to a great many Hispanics. How about the immigrants, legal and illegal having to live near a border infested with crime--think they may want more secure borders? Just some examples.



    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Our entire political system seems to be corrupt. Have you ever lived in the South? What you're implying here is that because Obama is part of the Chicago political scene, and that scene is corrupt. Obama is corrupt. How many ways do you want to say the same thing? You're making a broad sweeping generalization.
    Ahhh, grand irony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Chicago's political scene is corrupt
    Obama is part of the Chicago political scene
    Therefore: Obama is corrupt.

    The problem here is that while the scene may be corrupt, you cannot lump every politician into that, assuming that they participate in that corruption. Some could be reformers. We have a history of such a thing. Some may even be community organizers who try to fight that corruption.
    Rezko, legalislative warfare on opposition campaigns, unsealing of divorce records harmful to both parties and children, quid pro quo I showed you, etc etc. I didnt assume anything. Obama has dealings some of the most corrupt people in Chicago. Obama has questionable dealings and engages in questionable ethical political tactics any time he fears he cant win at the ballot box. The amazing part is you blowing off an example of subtle quid pro quo then jumping straight forward to assume Im stereotyping poor, poor Obama. What a crock.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    You'll need to be more specific than saying, "I didn't say or portray that". What is "That"??
    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    I don't think that works. I already admitted long ago, on this very thread that I knew I could be wrong. In fact, it was me that said I know I can be wrong. Can you say as much? How much more gracefully would you like than my own full admission? Conservatism is NOT infallibly correct. It's inherently flawed. The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all. And that means that when it comes to the truth or the ideology...the truth loses, because the ideology cannot be wrong. If you ever had any interest in the truth...you'd look at your ideology and ask yourself, what is it based on? When you find out..then ask what that base is based on. You'll find yourself in a dilemma of infinite regress vs your dogma. You'll always be looking for another basis to justify the one that comes next. It's a black hole, and theres no way out of it, except to say I believe it because I believe it, which is circular reasoning. A person that clints to a logical fallacy when he knows that it's a logical fallacy is irrational so why on earth would I or anybody want to accept irrationality as a way of life, or elect irrational people to govern this country?
    This pile of piss and wind. I didnt say any of that, thats you projecting again. Your a hardline ideologue portraying yourself as an intellectual free thinker. You aren't, not even close. Your criticism flows one direction and thats at your opposition. Btw, your circular logic here assumes from the start with little logical basis. Plus you present a whole host of thoughts and positions as mine that I have not presented. How many fallacies you want to go for in one paragraph?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Shouldn't be curious at all. Conservatism has a long history of race issues, and they still remain, whether you bring them up or not.
    So does liberalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    And conservatives don't do that do they? You know of course that you're voicing a biased opinion since you call yourself a conservative. You also go to the word; "Extensive" which is vague. It's like when you call for "smaller government". How small? What size exactly do you mean? What would be small according you? Also that the liberal is about the accumulation of power. Sounds just like a talking point. Who gave it to you?

    Dick Cheney argued for a Unitary Executive giving more power to the Executive. Karl Rove said he wanted a perpetual Republican Majority. And you're going to tell me who's about the accumulation of power? How do you justify telling me about your absolutist view of who's trying to grab power in light of your own conservatives attempts to do that very thing?
    The whole establishment thing earlier in the thread went right by you. Establishment republicans arent very conservative. Establishment DC on both sides want more power. Establishment GOP are just going along with the power plays and cementing their own positions. I honestly dont know how much smaller, since we havent actually cut government in decades, its pretty hard to tell. Maybe we ought to try it and see if it works before looking down nose dismissal begins.

    Whether you like it or not, Liberalism and Democrats have become the party of bigger and bigger government. No one on the left is even making an argument for reduction of anything other than rate of growth and they dont even like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    Well, that leaves me with a couple options. Join the TeaParty and take down the entire government of the United States, and it'll be every man for himself. OR...I could choose between the lesser of the other two "evils". Well, I'm not into taking down the US Government. So that's out. That leaves the Liberal Dems or the Conservative Pubs. Based on what I've seen, I'll go with the Dems. I don't agree with Social Darwinism. And the Dems are more in line with my own views.
    Bolded: LOL, smear smear smear. You cant seem to help yourself.
    2nd Bolded: Of course you dont.

  3. #1383
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    I think for the most part, people making under a million do, but people in that top of the top group, not even close.

    No whining, no wiggling, just facts.
    What do you consider their fair share then? How much of their money do you have a right to tell them they can keep?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #1384
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    What I responded to was your question over WHY we have a progessive taxation. These are the words of the Conservatives own guy. Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nation.

    Do you have your answer now?
    Do you think it was Adam's Smith position that income earners in this country shouldn't pay SOMETHING in federal income taxes or that 51% of the people carry the entire cost of the Federal Govt. funding it with their income taxes? Further the issue was providing or promoting the general welfare with over 100 million on some form of taxpayer assistance?

    You seem to have a serious problem responding directly to actual questions made and want to steer the discussion away from the data presented. You made the comment about hate radio so who us where hate radio made up the numbers I presented and define hate radio?

  5. #1385
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    You displayed your hatred for Obama a long while back. I told you then, I have zero respect for anything you post. In fact, I'd put you completely out of my mind as a legitimate poster. Now I remember. I'm really not interested in what you have to say. You're a person that's really filled with hate, and I find that pretty sick.
    Yep, typical liberal bull****, anything that points out facts and data is hatred for the person. What I do is confuse you by pointing out data the refutes the liberal rhetoric. You cannot figure out how an ideology that claims to promote compassion can be such an dire failure. You buy rhetoric and ignore data and facts. No wonder you have no interest in what anyone says that posts same.

  6. #1386
    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 j-mac View Post
    What do you consider their fair share then? How much of their money do you have a right to tell them they can keep?
    I would say that the people earning the most money should pay the highest rate, and at the very least, no less than of a fraction than any group below them.

    The top 1/10 of 1% earn about 8% of all income and pay about 9%% of total federal taxes. They big lie is that they pay 17% of the taxes, but that is sophistry, it requires one to pretend that no other taxes but income taxes exist, when of course other do exist, and those other taxes are regressive, so they are poored in greater percentages by people earning less than people making more.

    And this is just federal taxes.

    When you add in state and local taxes, which are almost all regressive (sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc) then the it only gets better.

    One would have to willfully ignorant not to understand this, seriously.

    I know why rich people talk up the meme of the rich paying such a large share of income taxes, it is the only theoretically progressive tax we have, what I don't understand is why lower income conservatives buy into this big lie. The facts are out there, but not easy to find among all the rhetorical slight of hand, but a person intent on learning the truth can figure it out.

  7. #1387
    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; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by conservative View Post
    yep, typical liberal bull****, anything that points out facts and data is hatred for the person. What i do is confuse you by pointing out data the refutes the liberal rhetoric. You cannot figure out how an ideology that claims to promote compassion can be such an dire failure. You buy rhetoric and ignore data and facts. No wonder you have no interest in what anyone says that posts same.
    Where is the " typical liberal bull**** "in the post that you quoted?
    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

  8. #1388
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    I would say that the people earning the most money should pay the highest rate, and at the very least, no less than of a fraction than any group below them.

    The top 1/10 of 1% earn about 8% of all income and pay about 9%% of total federal taxes. They big lie is that they pay 17% of the taxes, but that is sophistry, it requires one to pretend that no other taxes but income taxes exist, when of course other do exist, and those other taxes are regressive, so they are poored in greater percentages by people earning less than people making more.

    And this is just federal taxes.

    When you add in state and local taxes, which are almost all regressive (sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc) then the it only gets better.

    One would have to willfully ignorant not to understand this, seriously.

    I know why rich people talk up the meme of the rich paying such a large share of income taxes, it is the only theoretically progressive tax we have, what I don't understand is why lower income conservatives buy into this big lie. The facts are out there, but not easy to find among all the rhetorical slight of hand, but a person intent on learning the truth can figure it out.
    The big lie is what taxes are supposed to fund and what they fund. When you say total Federal Taxes you ignore what income taxes fund, excise, payroll, and corporate taxes and then again you ignore state liability as well as state responsibilities. That way liberals believe they win an argument when you fact in FICA taxes that fund SS and Medicare knowing darn well that FICA is capped making the percentage look worse for the rich.

    Here is what your Federal Income Taxes fund and what the rich are paying most of and 47-49% aren't paying any. That seem fair to a liberal

    Expenses

    Defense
    International Affairs
    Gen. Science, Space
    Energy
    Natural resources/env
    Agriculture
    Commerce/Housing Cr
    Transportation
    Community Dev
    Education/Train/Social
    Health
    Income Security
    Veterans Benefits
    Justice
    General Govt.
    Net Interest
    So stop buying the liberal rhetoric and get the facts. Tell me that all income earning Americans shouldn't be paying something to these expense items?

  9. #1389
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
    Where is the " typical liberal bull**** "in the post that you quoted?
    Show me where anything I posted displayed hatred for Obama and not simply his policies and results?

  10. #1390
    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; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Show me where anything I posted displayed hatred for Obama and not simply his policies and results?
    hatred [ˈheɪtrɪd]

    a feeling of intense dislike; enmity

    You show that Every time you post.Do you not recognize it yourself?
    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
  •