• 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

Really? Reading further...

Did you crosscheck this with Media Matters? Because I won't believe it till they say it's so. :lol:
 
what i get is class envy and a hatred of the concept of capitalism and the freedom to contract from you.

Sure. Because you're in total denial, because if you faced the truth, you wouldn't be able to carry on with your immoral practice of manipulating to your own advantage, at the expense of others. So let's get to it TurtleDude. I came clean a while back in the thread and openly revealed my stake in the issue. As I said before, I owned my own business for 10 years. I have no class envy, then or now. I'm not a materialist who worships money and the material things it can buy.
Even today, I'm spending what little money I have to take a stray cat to a veterinarian to treat a skin disorder (instead of spending those bucks on myself). No TurtleDude, you are the obsessed-with-money one in this thread, and it's written all over you. Only thing is you have the limited vision to think that everybody thinks like you.

So what's your bio ? Business owner ? Millionaire ? Greed freak ? I'm just wondering from what perspective you're talking from. Maybe if you're so involved in this tax cuts for the rich thing you should recuse yourself from the discussion ?
 
Last edited:
I didn't get "butthurt" (another one of your commonly known message board words ?).

Yup. :shrug:

Dude. You don't know the current lingo, you didn't know Silence of the Lambs, you keep referencing Burt Reynolds . . .

Are you aware of anything cultural that's happened since 1982?


I just wanted to correct the misperception that you created about being an Independent.

By confirming that you were doing exactly what I said you were doing . . . and I'm the one with the misconception? Shoo-wee.
 
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?

You may be interested to know that there is a very populous school of thought that doesn't share the idea that the income that manipulators who succeed in raking in millions (or even a Billion/year),, isn't really "their" income. That's only your perspective. Nothing more.
In fact, since the majority of the American people oppose the tax cuts for the rich, it looks like the "their" perspective is in the minority.
 
You may be interested to know that there is a very populous school of thought that doesn't share the idea that the income that manipulators who succeed in raking in millions (or even a Billion/year),, isn't really "their" income. That's only your perspective. Nothing more.
In fact, since the majority of the American people oppose the tax cuts for the rich, it looks like the "their" perspective is in the minority.

You're saying most people think that the income of the rich doesn't really belong to them?

And you object to being called "fringist"?

:lamo

Between this, the "Islam isn't a real religion," and the militant veganism, dude, you're about as fringe as it gets. :rofl

The "view of the independent," indeed.
 
Yup. :shrug:

Dude. You don't know the current lingo, you didn't know Silence of the Lambs, you keep referencing Burt Reynolds . . .

Are you aware of anything cultural that's happened since 1982?




By confirming that you were doing exactly what I said you were doing . . . and I'm the one with the misconception? Shoo-wee.

Somehow, I think that if what you call "the current lingo" was actually that, then in over 250 articles that I've had published in my other forum, in over 10,000 comments I've had published there and the verbal exchanges they precipitated, and in over 50,000 comments I've read from other members, somewhere along the line, these oddball words would have shown up. But they didn't. So I guess what I didn't know is your "current lingo". I can live with that.

Silence of the Lambs is nothing but another 3 1/2 star movie (one among thousands), and there's no necessity for anyone to have seen it, or know anything about it. Frankly, it doesn't have much significance on the grand scale of things as compared to really serious films like "Fitna" and "The Sum of All Fears", and the real-life political stories attached to them.

As for things cultural that have happened since 1982, well there was the "CONTRACT" (Dec. 1, 1982). Are you aware of that (and all its ramifications) ?

As for your question : "I'm the one with the misconception", Shoo-wee. Yup. You were the one in these words precisely > "..calling yourself an "independent" so as to claim some kind of objectivity is pretty lame when you post fringist drivel.", whereby you just got it wrong.
As I said before (and this is the last time I'm going to say it) I wasn't trying to "claim some kind of objectivity". The objectivity is something that comes with being an Independent seperate from party line
pressures, is established by sacrificing primary voting (not what youcall yourself), and in this case isn't "fringist" at all, since the majority of the American people agree with what I said (that there should not be tax cuts for the rich). Is this sinking in yet ? If not, too bad. I've wasted enough perfectly good time on this. Let's move on.
 
Last edited:
Sure. Because you're in total denial, because if you faced the truth, you wouldn't be able to carry on with your immoral practice of manipulating to your own advantage, at the expense of others. So let's get to it TurtleDude. I came clean a while back in the thread and openly revealed my stake in the issue. As I said before, I owned my own business for 10 years. I have no class envy, then or now. I'm not a materialist who worships money and the material things it can buy.
Even today, I'm spending what little money I have to take a stray cat to a veterinarian to treat a skin disorder (instead of spending those bucks on myself). No TurtleDude, you are the obsessed-with-money one in this thread, and it's written all over you. Only thing is you have the limited vision to think that everybody thinks like you.

So what's your bio ? Business owner ? Millionaire ? Greed freak ? I'm just wondering from what perspective you're talking from. Maybe if you're so involved in this tax cuts for the rich thing you should recuse yourself from the discussion ?


Your post oozes psychobabble. I invest wisely and work hard. your crap that I somehow engage in manipulative practices is the mindless spewage of the envious. YOu are the one obsessed with money-the money other people have and your make value judgments that have no basis in either fact or reality.
 
You may be interested to know that there is a very populous school of thought that doesn't share the idea that the income that manipulators who succeed in raking in millions (or even a Billion/year),, isn't really "their" income. That's only your perspective. Nothing more.
In fact, since the majority of the American people oppose the tax cuts for the rich, it looks like the "their" perspective is in the minority.

Yeah I am familiar with the parasite mindset that claims that anyone who makes good money somehow screwed them out of what they think the deserve. I don't give a damn what a bunch of non-tax payers think. That you have fallen for the BS rich dems spew to gain your support just establishes you are gullible
 
Yeah I am familiar with the parasite mindset that claims that anyone who makes good money somehow screwed them out of what they think the deserve. I don't give a damn what a bunch of non-tax payers think. That you have fallen for the BS rich dems spew to gain your support just establishes you are gullible

Non taxpayers?!?!?!?!

Just about all adults in this nation are taxpayers.

It would be nice if you did not use falsehoods mixed in with the over the top hyperbole.
 
Non taxpayers?!?!?!?!

Just about all adults in this nation are taxpayers.

It would be nice if you did not use falsehoods mixed in with the over the top hyperbole.

Net tax consumers is what I should have said and many people do not pay INCOME TAXES or the DEATH tax, the former being the TOPIC of this THREAD
 
Yeah I am familiar with the parasite mindset that claims that anyone who makes good money somehow screwed them out of what they think the deserve. I don't give a damn what a bunch of non-tax payers think. That you have fallen for the BS rich dems spew to gain your support just establishes you are gullible

Since I was saying what I'm saying now, before the parents of those BS rich dems were born, it would be hard to make the case that I'm falling for their "spew". LOL.
 
Net tax consumers is what I should have said and many people do not pay INCOME TAXES or the DEATH tax, the former being the TOPIC of this THREAD

In all your posts, in all the threads you attempt to take over and make this your cause celebre, I do not remember a single time where you actually defined the entire concept of a NET TAXPAYER and gave us the actual formula which computes such things.

How about right now today?
 
In all your posts, in all the threads you attempt to take over and make this your cause celebre, I do not remember a single time where you actually defined the entire concept of a NET TAXPAYER and gave us the actual formula which computes such things.

How about right now today?

what does that net taxpayer pay that currently is part of the 47% that doesn't pay any Federal Income tax, lives in a state with no state income taxes, doesn't drive a car, doesn't own a home or pay any property taxes, and doesn't buy anything that is subject to sales tax? Does that individual still benefit from the services of the Federal Govt?
 
Since I was saying what I'm saying now, before the parents of those BS rich dems were born, it would be hard to make the case that I'm falling for their "spew". LOL.

You predate the New Deal? I think you are lying
 
In all your posts, in all the threads you attempt to take over and make this your cause celebre, I do not remember a single time where you actually defined the entire concept of a NET TAXPAYER and gave us the actual formula which computes such things.

How about right now today?

go read some more. the last amount I heard was about 117,000 in taxable income. Those in the 47% group are clearly net tax consumers. Those targeted for Obama soaking (until recently) are clearly net tax payers. I am not going to worry about those in between those two groups
 
go read some more. the last amount I heard was about 117,000 in taxable income. Those in the 47% group are clearly net tax consumers. Those targeted for Obama soaking (until recently) are clearly net tax payers. I am not going to worry about those in between those two groups

NO NO NO NO NO

What I am asking you is to explain to me and everyone here just how this entire NET TAXPAYER thing is computed. HOW is it done. What is measured? How are all taxes accounted for? How are all services accounted for? How are the various differences in people and what services they use accounted for?

I want to know the details of how this definition is arrived at.

You see I wanted to find out for myself but I went to Wikipedia and put in NET TAXPAYER and there is no such thing there.
 
Last edited:
You're saying most people think that the income of the rich doesn't really belong to them?

And you object to being called "fringist"?

:lamo

Between this, the "Islam isn't a real religion," and the militant veganism, dude, you're about as fringe as it gets. :rofl

The "view of the independent," indeed.

I don't have to say it. The polls already have.

As for "Islam isn't a real religion", that's been said by billions of people around the world for 1400 years. What else is new ? The latest and most prestigious group to say it (link included) is the all-star writer cast of The Center for Security Policy's new book > "Shariah : The Threat To America".

They are :

MEMBERS OF TEAM B II
Team Leaders


LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM G. “JERRY” BOYKIN
US Army (Ret.), former Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense for Intelligence

LIEUTENANT GENERAL HARRY EDWARD SOYSTER
US Army (Ret.), former Director, Defense Intelligence Agency
Associates

CHRISTINE BRIM
Chief Operating Officer, Center for Security Policy

AMBASSADOR HENRY COOPER
former Chief Negotiator, Defense and Space Talks, former Director,
Strategic Defense Initiative

STEPHEN C. COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Major (Res.) USA, former Senior Consultant, Office of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff

MICHAEL DEL ROSSO
Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute and Center for Security Policy

FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR.
former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
(Acting), President, Center for Security Policy

JOHN GUANDOLO
former Special Agent, Counter-Terrorism Division, Federal Bureau of
Investigation

BRIAN KENNEDY
President, Claremont Institute

CLARE M. LOPEZ
Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy

ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS
US Navy (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney; Senior Fellow, National Review
Institute; Contributing Editor, National Review

PATRICK POOLE
Consultant to the military and law enforcement on anti-terrorism issues

JOSEPH E. SCHMITZ
former Inspector General, Department of Defense

TOM TRENTO
Executive Director, Florida Security Council

J. MICHAEL WALLER
Annenberg Professor of International Communication, Institute
of World Politics, and Vice President for Information Operations,
Center for Security Policy

DIANA WEST
author and columnist

R. JAMES WOOLSEY
former Director of Central Intelligence

DAVID YERUSHALMI, ESQ.
General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy

And here's a copy paste from 2 different pages of the book where they say it :

On page 30 > "Today, we are facing an internal threat that has masked itself as a religion (my emphasis) and that uses the tolerance for religious practice guaranteed by the Constitution’s First Amendment to parry efforts to restrict or prevent what amount to seditious activities".

Again, on Page 229 (and the title of Chapter 7) > "THE U.S. AND WESTERN VULNERABILITIES
TO A THREAT MASQUERADING AS A RELIGION.............229"


http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy....rica (Team B Report) Web Version 09302010.pdf

As for the militant veganism, those are your words not mine. I'm not really militant about being a vegetarian, but if all vegetarians were "fringe", that would be a heck of a good fringe.
 
Last edited:
Would that be the same Dick Morris of the toe sucking episode with prostitutes?

Yep, that one but how does that change the results from the latest census and all the lost population in high tax states? Seems that the messenger is a lot more important than the message when it comes to messages like this one.
 
I see no evidence in that opinion piece that showed people had moved because of low taxes. Did I miss that evidence? Could you present it again for me please?
 
I see no evidence in that opinion piece that showed people had moved because of low taxes. Did I miss that evidence? Could you present it again for me please?

LOL, TX picked up Four Representatives, companies are moving to TX and bringing employees with them. How do you explain it?
 
I see no evidence in that opinion piece that showed people had moved because of low taxes. Did I miss that evidence? Could you present it again for me please?

Its people mistaking correlation with causation.
 
Back
Top Bottom