• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBS News Poll: Most Oppose GOP Tax Plan

What load of crap. It reminds me of when the manure truck spilled out on Biffs car in BACK TO THE FUTURE.

People who use words like RETARDS have no business criticizing others. No business at all. You have disgraced yourself beyond redemption.

I want others to simply pay their share of taxes to have a decent America for all Americans. And you call that greed? Its a strange world you inhabit there in the Turtle McMansion.

Zimmer - that little skit from a bad situation comedy was not even funny.

Or relevant.

You admitted to being a dem party activist. By definition that means you want dems to win elections. How do dems win elections>? they demonize the rich by promising to afflict the comfortable while making the wealthy pay more taxes to fund the giveaways they promise to their minions.

Retards can mean many things. People who spawn like rabbits with multiple partners are 'retards' people who drop out of school because they are spawning like rabbits or doing drugs are retards in my book as well.

The top 1%, the top 2% and the top 5% pay more than their share of the taxes. If y ou consider their fair share whatever the bottom 90% say it should be I reject that as bullcrap.
 
Last edited:
from Turtle Dude
You admitted to being a dem party activist. By definition that means you want dems to win elections. How do dems win elections>? they demonize the rich by promising to afflict the comfortable while making the wealthy pay more taxes to fund the giveaways they promise to their minions.

What you do in these rants is set up a ridiculous situation that makes sense to you and perhaps some of your fellow True Believers because you have accepted certain axioms of right wing ideology.

Let me allow you to peek behind the Democratic campaign curtain to show you what is really back there. As I have told you, I have worked for Democratic candidates in state races in my state. I offer advice, sometimes for a fee, sometimes for free. I help put on one or two day workshops for candidates in a crash course on how to run a campaign. I recently managed a campaign for a State Rep seat and in two weeks will become Chief of Staff in that office. The Rep I will be working for has already been given the task of joining with a more experienced legislator to help take back the state House. As such, part of my duties will be to help plan the drive to return the Dems to a majority in the State House in two years. It will involve selecting districts we believe we can win back, recruiting candidates we believe can win and raising money to assist them. Think of what Rahm Emanuel did on a national level in 2006 and 2008 and that is the same job I will be participating in.

If I showed you all the campaign literature we produced, and I wrote most of it myself, there is not one single word in there about taxing the rich or demonizing the rich or promising people more government services and allowing others to pay the bill for them.
Nothing. Not one word. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And this is in a district within a major city with some highly impoverished areas where somebody like you would tell us that a "soak the rich" message would be well received.

We ran against eight other candidates in the Democratic primary and not one had any type of "soak the rich" message. Not one. And several were far to the left of us.

In advising other candidates, I have never advised anyone to use a "soak the rich" campaign, even as a minor plank in a larger platform. That is reality. That is fact. That is how things are done in the real world of Democratic Party politics. That is not how we win elections. Not by any stretch of the imagination does it figure in to our politics.

If anyone is guilty of demonization, it is you. Over and over and over again, you trot out the same old talking points about your wealth, about your status, about your ivy league background, about you family, about your occupation and you see the Democratic Party as the enemy of all that. You have worked yourself into such a state of delusion and paranoia that you actually believe the ridiculous falsehoods that you write here every day.

The issue of taxation is a complex one and good and decent people can differ about it. Economists of vast experience and knowledge differ on the issue. But in your case, your position on taxation is motivated and driven by only one factor - how it impacts you as an individual. That is your sole motivation which propels you to embrace the radical right wing ideas you embrace like connecting the vote to paying of income tax. Just look at the poll conducted right here on this website where your idea was put forth before people. Of those who voted for either of the two main options, 50 people voted AGAINST your idea while only 4 voted FOR it. And if you read carefully one of those said they voted for it by mistake. And there are lots of conservatives here... well beyond a mere four.

I think you are so quick to accuse others of greed because you recognize it as your own major motivation. You conclude that as you operate so must others operate. You fail to recognize what you have been told time after time by many different posters here - they do not want your money for themselves, they only want to see a workable and sustainable society for all Americans. But since you have no interest in either, you reject such thinking as foreign and conclude that your own greed must motivate them as it does you.

As to your use of the word RETARDS.
Retards can mean many things. People who spawn like rabbits with multiple partners are 'retards' people who drop out of school because they are spawning like rabbits or doing drugs are retards in my book as well.



Now you dig the hole deeper and I would guess that with you there is no bottom in sight. You have placed that bet and lost and now are going to double the next one. Its your funeral. No thinking individual in this age uses such words anymore outside of cretins, jerks and just plain fools. You have exposed your lack of character to all here to see with such a slur. You could quickly apologize for the slur. You could promise to avoid such a slur in the future. But you will not.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, it speaks for itself, but not for "self-ownage" (whatever that's supposed to be). Creating a new language as you go along, are you ? :roll:

:rofl

I'll let you figure out why. New to message boards, are we?


As for "party affiliation", yes you did. you've been talking about me being an Independent all along. What do you think that word means ? My voter ID card reads "NPA" - that stands for No Party Affiliation AKA Independent (as if you didn't know). And you don't prove it because of what you say. You prove it by how you register to vote. Man, don't you ever get anything right ???????
Any more tutoring here, and I'm going to have to start charging you ($5/word). Bwa ha ha ha (Burt Reynolds laugh) :lol:

No, I've been talking about your self-proclaimed "Independent view." To wit:

Not hard to see who telling the truth here, and who's not. (View of the Independent.)

As in, as I said very clearly earlier, a claim to some kind of objectivity. Yet you post fringist cliche-left drivel not in the least implied by what you were responding to.

Which wasn't that difficult to follow, really, unless your mission is obfuscation.
 
:rofl

I'll let you figure out why. New to message boards, are we?




No, I've been talking about your self-proclaimed "Independent view." To wit:



As in, as I said very clearly earlier, a claim to some kind of objectivity. Yet you post fringist cliche-left drivel not in the least implied by what you were responding to.

Which wasn't that difficult to follow, really, unless your mission is obfuscation.

No, not new to message boards at all. Been doing it for 5 years. And haven't seen (in 3 forums) some of these goofball not-in-the dictionary-either words of yours. Speak English, OK ?

You've been talking about just what I said you were talking about.

As you said very clearly earlier, a claim to some kind of objectivity. And as I said very clearly earlier, that's right I most certainly do make that claim, and I make it again now. Only difference between us is, I'm aware of why/how I make the claim, and what substantiates it, you're not.
Don't bother claiming that you are. That would simply add more to what I just said.

As for "fringist", I've already shot that down twice. Glutton for punishment ? What are you a masochist or something ? Bwa ha ha ha.
 
Last edited:
No, not new to message boards at all. Been doing it for 5 years. And haven't seen (in 3 forums) some of these goofball not-in-the dictionary-either words of yours. Speak English, OK ?

What, "self-ownage"? You've been on message boards for 5 years and you've never seen it?

It's you who needs to get hip to the lingo. Get with the times.


You've been talking about just what I said you were talking about.

As you said very clearly earlier, a claim to some kind of objectivity. And as I said very clearly earlier, that's right I most certainly do make that claim, and I make it again now. Only difference between us is, I'm aware of why/how I make the claim, and what substantiates it, you're not.
Don't bother claiming that you are. That would simply add more to what I just said.

As for "fringist", I've already shot that down twice. Glutton for punishment ? What are you a masochist or something ? Bwa ha ha ha.

Yes. You make a claim to "objectivity" simply because you call yourself an Independent. I mean, my God, it's right ther on your voter card; how can you NOT be objective? :roll:

This exactly is what I said, yet for some reason you got all butthurt about it. I mean, you're admitting it here; so why are you bothering to argue with me?

As for "shooting down," you cherry-picked your own strawman. :lamo
 
Last edited:
from Turtle Dude


What you do in these rants is set up a ridiculous situation that makes sense to you and perhaps some of your fellow True Believers because you have accepted certain axioms of right wing ideology.

Let me allow you to peek behind the Democratic campaign curtain to show you what is really back there. As I have told you, I have worked for Democratic candidates in state races in my state. I offer advice, sometimes for a fee, sometimes for free. I help put on one or two day workshops for candidates in a crash course on how to run a campaign. I recently managed a campaign for a State Rep seat and in two weeks will become Chief of Staff in that office. The Rep I will be working for has already been given the task of joining with a more experienced legislator to help take back the state House. As such, part of my duties will be to help plan the drive to return the Dems to a majority in the State House in two years. It will involve selecting districts we believe we can win back, recruiting candidates we believe can win and raising money to assist them. Think of what Rahm Emanuel did on a national level in 2006 and 2008 and that is the same job I will be participating in.

If I showed you all the campaign literature we produced, and I wrote most of it myself, there is not one single word in there about taxing the rich or demonizing the rich or promising people more government services and allowing others to pay the bill for them.
Nothing. Not one word. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And this is in a district within a major city with some highly impoverished areas where somebody like you would tell us that a "soak the rich" message would be well received.

We ran against eight other candidates in the Democratic primary and not one had any type of "soak the rich" message. Not one. And several were far to the left of us.

In advising other candidates, I have never advised anyone to use a "soak the rich" campaign, even as a minor plank in a larger platform. That is reality. That is fact. That is how things are done in the real world of Democratic Party politics. That is not how we win elections. Not by any stretch of the imagination does it figure in to our politics.

If anyone is guilty of demonization, it is you. Over and over and over again, you trot out the same old talking points about your wealth, about your status, about your ivy league background, about you family, about your occupation and you see the Democratic Party as the enemy of all that. You have worked yourself into such a state of delusion and paranoia that you actually believe the ridiculous falsehoods that you write here every day.

The issue of taxation is a complex one and good and decent people can differ about it. Economists of vast experience and knowledge differ on the issue. But in your case, your position on taxation is motivated and driven by only one factor - how it impacts you as an individual. That is your sole motivation which propels you to embrace the radical right wing ideas you embrace like connecting the vote to paying of income tax. Just look at the poll conducted right here on this website where your idea was put forth before people. Of those who voted for either of the two main options, 50 people voted AGAINST your idea while only 4 voted FOR it. And if you read carefully one of those said they voted for it by mistake. And there are lots of conservatives here... well beyond a mere four.

I think you are so quick to accuse others of greed because you recognize it as your own major motivation. You conclude that as you operate so must others operate. You fail to recognize what you have been told time after time by many different posters here - they do not want your money for themselves, they only want to see a workable and sustainable society for all Americans. But since you have no interest in either, you reject such thinking as foreign and conclude that your own greed must motivate them as it does you.

As to your use of the word RETARDS.




Now you dig the hole deeper and I would guess that with you there is no bottom in sight. You have placed that bet and lost and now are going to double the next one. Its your funeral. No thinking individual in this age uses such words anymore outside of cretins, jerks and just plain fools. You have exposed your lack of character to all here to see with such a slur. You could quickly apologize for the slur. You could promise to avoid such a slur in the future. But you will not.

So many words, such oozing nonsense. I have no need to apologize. I couldn't care less if that term bothers you. Why does it? I would even concede you are no retard.

Remember what the Great Patti Smith said about sins?
 
What, "self-ownage"? You've been on message boards for 5 years and you've never seen it?

It's you who needs to get hip to the lingo. Get with the times.




Yes. You make a claim to "objectivity" simply because you call yourself an Independent. I mean, my God, it's right ther on your voter card; how can you NOT be objective? :roll:

This exactly is what I said, yet for some reason you got all butthurt about it. I mean, you're admitting it here; so why are you bothering to argue with me?

As for "shooting down," you cherry-picked your own strawman. :lamo

I did not "admit" anything. I proclaimed it. "Admit" infers wrongdoing. That's in your head, not mine. I consider that being an Independent (not just calling oneself that) is a worthwhile thing. You forgo the primaries, but you are free of the ropes that the parties have that bind you to positions you don't support. So, you make up your own mind, and state your positions on the issues as you see fit, not some party bosses. It's great. Try it, you'll like it.
 
OK, fine. You "proclaim" to have done exactly what it is I said you did, and that you got butthurt over me saying. :roll:
 
So many words, such oozing nonsense. I have no need to apologize. I couldn't care less if that term bothers you. Why does it? I would even concede you are no retard.

Remember what the Great Patti Smith said about sins?

And the biggest bit of "oozing nonsense" in that post is your defense of the word RETARD. See, I told you that you would keep digging deeper. Its pathological with you and you cannot help it no matter even if you tried.

Nice attempt at playing ostrich and pretending not to have read the utter and complete refutation of your lame attack on Dems. Its really a big bite in your rich behind when the actual truth gets in the way of your belief system.
 
Your 2 points contradict each other. Bottom line is Republicans dont want to help pull their weight. They DONT want to be a team player. And the majority of Republicans rarely work nearly as hard as others. Ive seen it. I lived it. Boil it down and Republicans are greedy children that dont want to play ball. They dont want to help others SOOOOOOOO the government will FORCE Republicans to help out the rest of the Nation. Sad but true. They arent team players.


And this comment:


Is 100% ignorant. So you think their money goes to pot heads??? And whats this Joe 6-pack ****? Sounds like youve got one twisted view of reality making those comments. PLUS you think low income people DONT bust their ass???? You really need to stop voting until you understand life and reality.

I complety disagree with you, but have a question.
Poor people who can't work or low income working people should be helped in my opinion. However, why should the wealthy be responsible for helping everyone else on top of helping the poor? Maybe taxes should be raised on everyone except for the poor. Would you be up for that or is it more about spreading the wealth so incomes are more equal?
 
So it never occured to you that "trickle down" is a laughingstock.
Yes... when I was an ignorant socialist.

Today...No... this country was created by trickle down. Liberty. Low taxation. Freedom from government oppression. Before Reagan came in the world was talking about American demise, in terms worse than today. Stagflation was a common term... double digit inflation and interest rates. The Misery Index was a common term too.

Strange headline for the NY Times... but read the text...
America's Not Weak
June 05, 1980

SAN ANTONIO--Maybe it is just Presidential fever that is imposing a national inferiority complex on this country. We are barraged daily by declarations of our national weakness and impending demise.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A11FB395F12728DDDAC0894DE405B8084F1D3

Or this:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&dq=america's economic demise&pg=4931,2857402


Thanks to Reagan we had 28-years of tremendous growth... but entitlements, Freddie & Fannie... socialist government intrusion is burdening the nation.
Bush tried it by lowering taxes in 2003. Since then, the US economy has been struggling (partly also because of Bush's terrible immigration policies, now being continued, if not worsened, by Obama).
Thise who fail to learn history are bound to repeat it... or at least come across as an ignoramus.

Simple fact is, when you put money in poor people's hands (the Have-Nots), they go to the stores (AKA the economy) and buy all the things that they "Have-Not", stimulating the economy. That's what happens when taxes are (as you call it), "punitive".
Fact is... when there is low unemployment, businesses compete for workers, people pay more in taxes to the government at lower rates, the government has to pay less out, AND there become jobs that Americans won't do!!! Assisting neighboring economies run by corrupt governments.

You put money into rich people's hands (the Haves), and they don't go to the stores to buy all the things they already "Have". In addition, when rich people do spend their money, they spend a much higher % of it OUTSIDE the country, where it does no good to the country's economy, and in fact, worsens it by removing cash from it. Great for Europe and the Caribbean, huh ?
People will look to move companies and hide wealth when the government is oppressive. When it's not oppressive, doesn't punish the wealthy... you get more activity.

Why do governments tax smokes and spirits at high rates? To discourage the activity. The same goes when you try to sock it to the bright folks with money. In fact, many will pay $2.00 to avoid paying $1.00 in taxes.

Did you miss what happened when people try to sock it to the wealthy? The folks down the line get screwed. Any time you hear the government say they want to help, or assist you... replace "help" or "assist" with screw, and you have an accurate picture of the end result.

.
 
Last edited:
this country was created by trickle down.

I thought it was created by redistributing the wealth of the indigenous population by giving it to invading Europeans and their descendants.
 
I thought it was created by redistributing the wealth of the indigenous population by giving it to invading Europeans and their descendants.

Which wealth was that?
 
All of it, or nearly. Most specifically the rights to access of land and other natural resources.

Right, because all of the land was taken from the "natives" with all of the cities, buildings, roads, infrastructure, industry, and all other forms of wealth already fully intact.
 
Right, because all of the land was taken from the "natives" with all of the cities, buildings, roads, infrastructure, industry, and all other forms of wealth already fully intact.

None of those things would exist without the resources which were stolen to make them. The point I am making is that it is ridiculous to claim that the country was built through pure capitalism and trickle down economics. We all know the government parceled out the land to settlers in what is probably the greatest redistribution of wealth in the history of humanity.
 
Last edited:
None of those things would exist without the resources which were stolen to make them. The point I am making is that it is ridiculous to claim that the country was built through pure capitalism and trickle down economics. We all know the government parceled out the land to settlers in what is probably the greatest redistribution of wealth in the history of humanity.

And it would all still be wilderness otherwise, worth pretty much nothing. You're talking about "wealth" -- and not just "resources," but "all or most" of the "wealth." My house is worth a hell of a lot more than the sum of the raw materials and the plot of land. Why is that, exactly? Hint: the answer to that question is key to why your claim just doesn't hold water.
 
You're talking about "wealth" -- and not just "resources," but "all or most" of the "wealth."
The "all or most" I am referring to is the wealth held by the indigenous population, not what it was transformed into later. I am not making a claim that the current wealth we hold now is still that same amount of wealth.

My house is worth a hell of a lot more than the sum of the raw materials and the plot of land. Why is that, exactly? Hint: the answer to that question is key to why your claim just doesn't hold water.
Are you absolutely sure of that? The value of real estate, as we have been learning recently, is determined in a relatively arbitrary manner. Perhaps you can make that claim about your own home, but there are a lot of other folks living here in the U.S. who are now being told that their home is not, in fact worth as much as the materials it is made from.
 
The "all or most" I am referring to is the wealth held by the indigenous population, not what it was transformed into later. I am not making a claim that the current wealth we hold now is still that same amount of wealth.

Funny; you were talking about the country being "built," so I don't see how you weren't. The wealth in the country now is unimaginably more than there was when the country was founded, and by that I mean within the borders as they exist now. Why? Because things were BUILT with the resources, not simply because the resources were there.


Are you absolutely sure of that?

Without a shred of doubt.


The value of real estate, as we have been learning recently, is determined in a relatively arbitrary manner. Perhaps you can make that claim about your own home, but there are a lot of other folks living here in the U.S. who are now being told that their home is not, in fact worth as much as the materials it is made from.

Like who? Besides, it doesn't matter; it's not about any specific house; it's about the concept. :roll:
 
OK, fine. You "proclaim" to have done exactly what it is I said you did, and that you got butthurt over me saying. :roll:

I didn't get "butthurt" (another one of your commonly known message board words ?). I just wanted to correct the misperception that you created about being an Independent.
 
I complety disagree with you, but have a question.
Poor people who can't work or low income working people should be helped in my opinion. However, why should the wealthy be responsible for helping everyone else on top of helping the poor? Maybe taxes should be raised on everyone except for the poor. Would you be up for that or is it more about spreading the wealth so incomes are more equal?

It is more about spreading the wealth so incomes are more equal. Yes. There still could be stratification of incomes but not to the ludicrous degree that that are in today's out of control "system".
 
I thought it was created by redistributing the wealth of the indigenous population by giving it to invading Europeans and their descendants.

We won, they lost, life's a bitch.
 
It is more about spreading the wealth so incomes are more equal. Yes. There still could be stratification of incomes but not to the ludicrous degree that that are in today's out of control "system".

why should those who work hard and smart have to have their income taken to fund those who are stupid and lazy? that only encourages more stupidity and laziness. How is society made better by watering down the work ethic?
 
why should those who work hard and smart have to have their income taken to fund those who are stupid and lazy? that only encourages more stupidity and laziness. How is society made better by watering down the work ethic?

I agree totally. Now let's get back on the subject I was talking about. Those who are "smart" and don't work hard, while they let their employees do the hard work, should have income taken from them (notice I didn't refer to it as "their"), because they have simply manipulated money and people to enrich themselves, at the expense of everyone else in the society, who, unlike these lazy smart aleks, have been working hard, including the employees of these rich business owners.
This also improves the work ethic, by getting money (reward) into the pockets of those who actually worked for it (while their big boss was out on his fishing boat or the golf course). Get it ?
 
I agree totally. Now let's get back on the subject I was talking about. Those who are "smart" and don't work hard, while they let their employees do the hard work, should have income taken from them (notice I didn't refer to it as "their"), because they have simply manipulated money and people to enrich themselves, at the expense of everyone else in the society, who, unlike these lazy smart aleks, have been working hard, including the employees of these rich business owners.
This also improves the work ethic, by getting money (reward) into the pockets of those who actually worked for it (while their big boss was out on his fishing boat or the golf course). Get it ?

what i get is class envy and a hatred of the concept of capitalism and the freedom to contract from you.
 
Back
Top Bottom