• 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!

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke

Gibberish said:
Your statement stands if you ignore the rest of his statement and only read the bolded.
Click to expand...
The context of his statement doesnt change the meaning of the term 'any" -- and thus, my statement stands, period.

If you want to ignore the plenary nature of the word 'any", that's your problem -- and, no matter how much you may want to excuse The Obama for this, you cannot change the fact that 'any' means EXACTLY that.
 
Gibberish said:
Did the FACT that he was speaking in context of income based taxes change? No it didn't. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
That's OK -- I didn't expect you to man up.
 
Goobieman said:
That's OK -- I didn't expect you to man up.
Click to expand...

Coming from the man who has NEVER manned up to ANYTHING. :roll:

I don't know whether to laugh at or cry for you. Really.

Gibberish, move on. You have better ways to spend your time on this message board.
 
aps said:
I don't know whether to laugh at or cry for you. Really.
Click to expand...
I could not possibly care less about what you think or do.
:roll:
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Completely relevant.

ANY of your taxes.
Please provide for me the stipulation within the term "any" that excludes taxes on tobacco.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, Goobie, your going to spin this in your usual partisan hack way, making zero sense and then claiming victory when no one disputes your irrelevant points. I'm sure you understand what Obama meant, in fact all of the things he listed have something to do with types of income taxes. Cigarette taxes are a completely different animal. But I know you need to dislike each and everything Obama does, simply because, as a partisan hack, it's ingrained in you. This prevents you from seeing how innaccurate you are about nearly everything.

Buy please, continue spinning this. It is always amusing watching you present ridiculous positions.
 
Goobieman said:
Read My Lips: No New Taxes.
-GHWB, 1988

Obama said he would not raise any taxes -- and now, this.
If he did not lie, then he clearly misled.
Click to expand...

No, he did neither. YOU'RE the one that's lying. You completely understand what he was talking about. You're just making this idiotic claim because that's all you've got.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Completely relevant.
Click to expand...
Not at all.
The issue is the increase in taxes, not the 'voluntary' nature of some taxes. That a tax may be on a voluntary activity (like sales tax), it doesnt change the fact that to raise that tax is to raise a tax.

The statement that there would be no increase in any taxes was plenary -- it referred to any tax paid by any person.

Yes, yes, Goobie, your going to spin this in your usual partisan hack way
Click to expand...
And, as usual, rather than illustrate how I am wrong, you're going to cry about it. Waaah.

:2bigcry:
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, he did neither. YOU'RE the one that's lying. You completely understand what he was talking about. You're just making this idiotic claim because that's all you've got.
Click to expand...

And, as usual, rather than illustrate how I am wrong, you're going to cry about it. Waaah.

:2bigcry:
 
Goobieman said:
Not at all.
The issue is the increase in taxes, not the 'voluntary' nature of some taxes. That a tax may be on a voluntary activity (like sales tax), it doesnt change the fact that to raise that tax is to raise a tax.

The statement that there would be no increase in any taxes was plenary -- it referred to any tax paid by any person.


And, as usual, rather than illustrate how I am wrong, you're going to cry about it. Waaah.

:2bigcry:
Click to expand...


Goobieman said:
And, as usual, rather than illustrate how I am wrong, you're going to cry about it. Waaah.
Click to expand...

And as usual, after making an irrelevant, partisan hack point, that has no basis in reality, you claim victory.

But, here are the 3 signs that you are debating an hyperpartisan conservative hack:

1) I'm right because I said so. Shut up.
2) Prove it? :bolt
3) :2bigcry:

You've already done #1 and #2. Just waiting on #3.

Oh, and Goobie. You've already been proven wrong BY EVERYONE...just like every thread you post this kind of crap on.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
And as usual, after making an...
Click to expand...
I tire of youir juvenile head-in-assery.

Whatever part of your infantile ego you feel necessary to stroke, you go ahead and stroke it -- but, consider anything you post from this point on to be ignored.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
I tire of youir juvenile head-in-assery.

Whatever part of your infantile ego you feel necessary to stroke, you go ahead and stroke it -- but, consider anything you post from this point on to be ignored.
Click to expand...

Honestly, Goobie, you really really really need to look in the mirror and say those words. I cannot even fathom your ignorance to anyone's opinion but yours.
 
aps said:
Honestly, Goobie, you really really really need to look in the mirror and say those words. I cannot even fathom your ignorance to anyone's opinion but yours.
Click to expand...
I could not possibly care less about what you think or do.
 
Goobieman said:
I tire of youir juvenile head-in-assery.

Whatever part of your infantile ego you feel necessary to stroke, you go ahead and stroke it -- but, consider anything you post from this point on to be ignored.
Click to expand...

And, as predicted, that's #3. :laughat::neutral:
 
Zyphlin said:
Criticizing a misspeak as "lieing" isn't valid. And frankly, the opinions of hypocrites that criticize Obama about "lieing" for a misspeak that never made a peep about Bush's promises of no nation building and no world policing or the issues with WMD's and other things in regards to Iraq are also invalid.
Click to expand...

So, the grandiloquent pontificator misspoke? If that is indeed the case then he should clarify his statement.

ANY taxes means ANY taxes. It doesn't mean any taxes EXCEPT _________.
 
Ethereal said:
So, the grandiloquent pontificator misspoke? If that is indeed the case then he should clarify his statement.

ANY taxes means ANY taxes. It doesn't mean any taxes EXCEPT _________.
Click to expand...
YOUR problem is that YOU don't understand the meaning of 'is'.

I asked for the stipulation within the term "any" that excludes taxes on tobacco. I haven't received a response.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
So, the grandiloquent pontificator misspoke? If that is indeed the case then he should clarify his statement.

ANY taxes means ANY taxes. It doesn't mean any taxes EXCEPT _________.
Click to expand...

No, by not being a extremely partisan or someone looking to take people out of context by going strictly literal, ANY Taxes in that context meant ANY taxes specifically designed for a tax bracket under $250,000. Which this is not the case.
 
Didn't he state that if you made less than that your "taxes will not go up one dime"?
 
Yes, in the context of speaking about taxes that are specific to the income one makes.

Consumption taxes are not specific to income levels.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, in the context of speaking about taxes that are specific to the income one makes.

Consumption taxes are not specific to income levels.
Click to expand...



So, if I know, I am going to raise consumption taxes to pay for my statist goals and government programs, Am I being honest in making that statment?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So, if I know, I am going to raise consumption taxes to pay for my statist goals and government programs, Am I being honest in making that statment?
Click to expand...

At best, it is a not-so-carefully crafted exceptionary statement, so that when He DOES raise those taxes, He can say 'well, I promised not to raise INCOME taxes -- and this isnt an income tax".

(Note how this is EXACTLY the argument used for His defense...)
 
For example...

Lets say this was something different. Lets say a random politician started going "Under my administration I promise we will have no new entitlement programs. We won't have new health care programs, we won't have new perscription programs, we won't have new daycare programs. We won't have any new programs".

If he then comes out and create a program that provides those that are unemployed a chance to attend a course where they learn a job skill and actually do said job while learning it (for example, normal trade skills), would he be lying?

While it is a government program, its not technically an "entitlement" program. However, he did say "any new programs" at the end of it. Do you say the person is lying, becuase he did create a new program and that goes against what he literally said, or do you say he wasn't lying but perhaps misspoke because the CONTEXT of it makes it clear he's talking specifically about entitlement programs?
 
Zyphlin said:
For example...

Lets say this was something different. Lets say a random politician started going "Under my administration I promise we will have no new entitlement programs. We won't have new health care programs, we won't have new perscription programs, we won't have new daycare programs. We won't have any new programs".

If he then comes out and create a program that provides those that are unemployed a chance to attend a course where they learn a job skill and actually do said job while learning it (for example, normal trade skills), would he be lying?

While it is a government program, its not technically an "entitlement" program. However, he did say "any new programs" at the end of it. Do you say the person is lying, becuase he did create a new program and that goes against what he literally said, or do you say he wasn't lying but perhaps misspoke because the CONTEXT of it makes it clear he's talking specifically about entitlement programs?
Click to expand...




How is that not an entitlement program? They are "entitled" to that course. :confused:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So, if I know, I am going to raise consumption taxes to pay for my statist goals and government programs, Am I being honest in making that statment?
Click to expand...

Its an honest statement, but you're being deceiptful. That said, I'm not going to personally hound Obama for potentially being decieptful when he did nothing different than what every politician, Democrat or Republican, have likely done at some point in their political lives. I would say its not much of a "change" from politics as usual, but then I've been saying that about him for ages now.

I would say that its not a "lie" though and not proof he's a "liar".

Oh, by the way, my answer has nothing to do with it being about "statist goals and government programs". The same is true if a republican campaigned that they would significantly lower taxes for people, and then ended up lowering the taxes by .5% for everyone making under $100,000 while lowering it by 10% for those making over $100,000. Politicians routinely state things in ways that are factual, but misleading, specifically to avoid saying the portions people won't dislike. People that get EXTREMELY upset over that but only when one side does it are hillariously hypocritical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom