• 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!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

muciti said:
Because people are jealous of the rich. Penalize anyone who has more than me!
Click to expand...

That really what it all boils down to isn't it....Class war gone crazy.

Thanks Barry!


j-mac
 
whysoserious said:
You act like we all make conscience choices when buying. At no point have I ever chosen to support Monsanto, but I have probably given them far more money than I care to know about.
Click to expand...

So its Monsanto's fault that you refuse to support your local business and instead CHOOSE to give money to them? Nice job with accountability there buddy.
 
j-mac said:
That really what it all boils down to isn't it....Class war gone crazy.

Thanks Barry!


j-mac
Click to expand...

If you want to see class warfare, watch Fox talking heads and poltiical entertainers. No one is more emersed in that battle than they are.

But it makes for an easy talking point for the intellectually challeneged.

:coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
If you want to see class warfare, watch Fox talking heads and poltiical entertainers. No one is more emersed in that battle than they are.

But it makes for an easy talking point for the intellectually challeneged.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

Oh you mean when they talk about the "leeching" class (or whatever they call it)? Can you remember what they call poor people? I can't off the top of my head but it relates to them leeching.
 
muciti said:
So its Monsanto's fault that you refuse to support your local business and instead CHOOSE to give money to them? Nice job with accountability there buddy.
Click to expand...

Local farmers may very well be using Monsanto seed as well. I don't know where and how I can find that out. Do you?
 
whysoserious said:
Oh you mean when they talk about the "leeching" class (or whatever they call it)? Can you remember what they call poor people? I can't off the top of my head but it relates to them leeching.
Click to expand...

“Class warfare,” as Stewart says at the end of his masterful piece, is scorned on Fox, which turns around and practices it on the poor and working classes, whom it calls “parasites,” “animals,” “takers,” and “moochers.” This campaign is so all-encompassing that the network even questions whether the poor exist, putting the word in scare quotes for an appalling Stuart Varney segment on how most poor people have luxuries like refrigerators and air conditioning.

Jon Stewart On Fox's Reverse Class Warfare : CJR
 
muciti said:
Because people are jealous of the rich. Penalize anyone who has more than me!
Click to expand...

BZZZZT!! Thanks for playing, please insert another quarter to play again.

WHY do the rich need to pay more in taxes? Because:

1. We need to raise more revenue, even if we cut spending dramatically;
2. The rich, unlike the poor and middle class, can pay higher taxes without suffering;
3. The rich benefitted more than the poor and middle class from previous tax cuts;
4. The rich are paying at very low rate relative to rates over the last 80 years;
5. The rich have prospered over the last 30 years while every other group has lost ground or marched in place.
 
Boo Radley said:
“Class warfare,” as Stewart says at the end of his masterful piece, is scorned on Fox, which turns around and practices it on the poor and working classes, whom it calls “parasites,” “animals,” “takers,” and “moochers.” This campaign is so all-encompassing that the network even questions whether the poor exist, putting the word in scare quotes for an appalling Stuart Varney segment on how most poor people have luxuries like refrigerators and air conditioning.

Jon Stewart On Fox's Reverse Class Warfare : CJR
Click to expand...

Parasites! That's what it is!
 
AdamT said:
BZZZZT!! Thanks for playing, please insert another quarter to play again.
Click to expand...

Don't try and get cute, you're not very good at it, and it comes off as insulting, and arrogant.

WHY do the rich need to pay more in taxes? Because:

1. We need to raise more revenue, even if we cut spending dramatically;
Click to expand...

So then broaden the base, and do the cuts first as a gesture of good faith since every time demo's proposed cuts in the past coupled with tax hikes, the hikes come, the cuts don't.

Simply, we don't trust liberal promises anymore.

2. The rich, unlike the poor and middle class, can pay higher taxes without suffering;
Click to expand...

Who voted you the arbiter of what others can, or can not afford? Or what is rich, and what isn't?

3. The rich benefitted more than the poor and middle class from previous tax cuts;
Click to expand...

That may be true, but to penalize them for that is more jealousy based than it is anything concerning "fair"

4. The rich are paying at very low rate relative to rates over the last 80 years;
Click to expand...

More jealousy, but so what! We have more percentage paying not one dime than ever before much less the last 80 years. What about them getting some skin in the game?

5. The rich have prospered over the last 30 years while every other group has lost ground or marched in place.
Click to expand...

And more jealousy. The income inequality is not going to be solved by destroying the people responsible for creating the jobs, or having the means to invest so that others can work. Believe me, if it gets too bad they will just leave.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
“Class warfare,” as Stewart says at the end of his masterful piece, is scorned on Fox, which turns around and practices it on the poor and working classes, whom it calls “parasites,” “animals,” “takers,” and “moochers.” This campaign is so all-encompassing that the network even questions whether the poor exist, putting the word in scare quotes for an appalling Stuart Varney segment on how most poor people have luxuries like refrigerators and air conditioning.

Jon Stewart On Fox's Reverse Class Warfare : CJR
Click to expand...


Stewart, although funny, is a partisan hack comedian. Telling that you derive your opinion from the snark he attacks with, rather than think of real solutions, or compromise.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Stewart, although funny, is a partisan hack comedian. Telling that you derive your opinion from the snark he attacks with, rather than think of real solutions, or compromise.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter one single bit. He's correct. As I keep telling you, bias means nothing. Accuracy does. And all you ahve to do is watch Fox or the clips to knwo he is accurate. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Doesn't matter one single bit. He's correct. As I keep telling you, bias means nothing. Accuracy does. And all you ahve to do is watch Fox or the clips to knwo he is accurate. ;)
Click to expand...

Are his clips edited?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Don't try and get cute, you're not very good at it, and it comes off as insulting, and arrogant.
Click to expand...

You are something of an authority on completely unwarranted arrogance, I will give you that.


So then broaden the base, and do the cuts first as a gesture of good faith since every time demo's proposed cuts in the past coupled with tax hikes, the hikes come, the cuts don't.
Simply, we don't trust liberal promises anymore.
Click to expand...

How about a few examples to illustrate what you're talking about? You mean like when Clinton raised taxes and cut spending, thus balancing the budget?

Who voted you the arbiter of what others can, or can not afford? Or what is rich, and what isn't?
Click to expand...

Who elected you the arbiter of what opinions other people may or may not express? Are you blind to the absolute irony of your comment? :lol:

That may be true, but to penalize them for that is more jealousy based than it is anything concerning "fair"
Click to expand...

Actually it has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy. That is a pathetic wingnut talking point that you should really try to get past.

More jealousy, but so what! We have more percentage paying not one dime than ever before much less the last 80 years. What about them getting some skin in the game?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that everyone should be paying more. But it needs to be much more progressive than it has been in recent years.

And more jealousy. The income inequality is not going to be solved by destroying the people responsible for creating the jobs, or having the means to invest so that others can work. Believe me, if it gets too bad they will just leave.
Click to expand...

Really, get over the jealousy canard. It has no basis in fact and it just makes you look stupider. You've compounded multiple strawman arguments into one sentence and that's bad enough. No one claims that bumping the top income rate a few percent is going to solve income inequality. Nor is going to destroy the wealthy if they have to pay historically average income tax rates. Believe me, taxes on the rich have been *much* higher in the past, and they didn't go anywhere.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Are his clips edited?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Of course, but not in a way that changes what was said. No splicing to make it seem like they said something they didn't. Sorry, j. You're just trying to excuse poor behavior that you want to be what it isn't.
 
AdamT said:
You are something of an authority on completely unwarranted arrogance, I will give you that.
Click to expand...

I think you judge much from typed word. You seem to come to conclusion without ever meeting someone, purely based on ideology. I'd say that is the real arrogance.


How about a few examples to illustrate what you're talking about? You mean like when Clinton raised taxes and cut spending, thus balancing the budget?
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean when Newt, and the republican congress forced Clinton to reform welfare, and balance a budget to save his re election bid?


Who elected you the arbiter of what opinions other people may or may not express? Are you blind to the absolute irony of your comment?
Click to expand...

Never said you couldn't express your opinion, as wrong as I believe it to be....See what you did there is an actual strawman....pay attention now.

Actually it has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy. That is a pathetic wingnut talking point that you should really try to get past.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely a jealousy based argument...."Whaaaa!....It isn't fair that the rich have so much, we should take it....Whaaaaa!"


Yes, I agree that everyone should be paying more. But it needs to be much more progressive than it has been in recent years.
Click to expand...

So broaden the base, make more contribute in, and lower over all rates while doing away with some deductions and revenues will flood in. This has been proven, unless you think Kennedy was wrong?

Really, get over the jealousy canard. It has no basis in fact and it just makes you look stupider.
Click to expand...

Anyone that uses a word like "stupider" should not talk.

You've compounded multiple strawman arguments into one sentence and that's bad enough.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know what a strawman argument is....Back to school son.

No one claims that bumping the top income rate a few percent is going to solve income inequality. Nor is going to destroy the wealthy if they have to pay historically average income tax rates. Believe me, taxes on the rich have been *much* higher in the past, and they didn't go anywhere.
Click to expand...

And if you actually read my arguments, you'd know that I am not totally against a rate increase, if they are done only after spending cuts are enacted. We don't trust liberal progressives anymore.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Of course, but not in a way that changes what was said. No splicing to make it seem like they said something they didn't. Sorry, j. You're just trying to excuse poor behavior that you want to be what it isn't.
Click to expand...

Now Joe, you are really stretching the limits of credibility here....Stewart, or Liebowitz as his real name would reveal, absolutely does splice, edit, selectively, and out of context take utterances of republicans to make them look foolish. That is his shtick. But, you think he is news so.......


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Now Joe, you are really stretching the limits of credibility here....Stewart, or Liebowitz as his real name would reveal, absolutely does splice, edit, selectively, and out of context take utterances of republicans to make them look foolish. That is his shtick. But, you think he is news so.......


j-mac
Click to expand...

By all means, prove that. I've actuall seen a couple of those he shows, and he has done nothing of the kind with the ones I saw. But feel free, actually show a section unspliced that is different than he present.

And no, I think he is news. Nor do I think Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly, Obeman or Maddow are news either. Stewart's just often more accurate than they are. ;)
 
whysoserious said:
Is there something wrong in the clips or are you just diverting attention?
Click to expand...

Not at all, they are funny most of the time. And his writing team is genus at poking fun at conservatives. But to say that he never edits to change meaning, or distort for comedic effect, well, that is just a lie.

j-mac
 
While the movement is losing approval, the ideas it is pushing are gaining approval.
66% now believe that the US has a wealth distribution problem. This has not been above 50% since the Great Depression.
Approval for universal healthcare is rising.
Approval for cutting Medicare and Social Security is dropping.
Approval for more regulation of Wall Street and banking is rising.
Approval of public-sector unions is rising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom