|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
|
Now come on Russ, set aside you natural liberal restraint and tell us what you really think.
|
dmaestro
13-Jan-13, 00:16
|
We are being as gentle as we can given the truth
|
|
... but, Dm, you're not being gentle at all; you're using the same sorts of weapons they are. I do understand your positions (and agree with some too), but gentle you're not. What I would like to see is a provocative hardlined compromiser, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
 chaz5 |
|
russvan ...
... such has always been the case.
|
|
Russ
I understand that liberals aren't prone to angry or emotional outbursts, preferring instead to engage in reasoned and rational conversation. That it's understood any quality of their argument can only be undermined if their content was dominated by childish and angry invectives or insults. It's a good thing liberals don't adhere to such things.
|
dmaestro
13-Jan-13, 12:29
|
Liberals are rightly frustrated with the skewed manipulated thinking of these extremists. They are easily used by their puppet masters and emotionally manipulated to serve them even though it is not on their best interests. They can't see the forest for the trees. Yes I realize and have asserted before that you can't reason with their closed loop mindset. They cling to their guns because it makes them feel secure
|
|
You guys keep stating this "cling to our guns, and we are nuts". Seriously? It is you liberal whackjobs that we can't reason with because you are all too busy dreaming of Obama and Michael Jackson riding a unicorn over a rainbow and passing out candy to little children. That is more along the lines. And DM this notion that obama "cares" about you.... Bless your heart.
We have far too many issues to worry about, national defense, the economy, jobs, etc... And all you liberals care about are Weed, Abortions, and whether or not two dudes can brag about bending each other over in a hotel room and getting a certificate from the state for their special rights. These are your priorities and they are sick and ungodly and perverted and twisted. You seek to give special rights where they are not warranted while wanting to squelch the existing rights of others. You feel you are noble and this notion of taking from the rich to give to the poor, but you never volunteer yourself. You liberals only know about charitable giving with other peoples money, and then you try to take credit yourselves. You libs did not win the election, rather EVERY single American lost. Every single American not even born yet lost. This isn't close minded. This is FACT. I'm sorry but 1+1=2, and you don't need to tell me that if I had an open mind that 1+1 could equal 3.
|
|
Jerry64
"1+1=2" good job!, there is still hope for you.
|
|
russvan
I wish i could say the same of you.
|
changeling
14-Jan-13, 07:07
|
jerry
"...You libs did not win the election, rather EVERY single American lost. Every single American not even born yet lost. This isn't close minded. This is FACT..."
Really?
|
|
Rule 1 of the internet change, declaring something to be a fact automatically makes it so!
|
|
change
I want to jump in here and support that comment. I agree 100% with it! YES, Americans all lost in this election, especially those not yet born.
We will now have another four years of TRILLION dollar Plus deficits and our national debt will rise to well over $20 trillion. We will NOT be able to pay the interest on that amount, let alone bring down the principal. The taxes needed to be collected on future tax payers will put them into a new Feudal system, from which they will never get out from.
I am wondering how you all (in other Western countries) will feel when the dollar completely collapses and brings your economies crumbling down too, even though you may have been more fiscally frugal than us.
|
changeling
14-Jan-13, 07:18
|
Every liberal minded person in the US is also "ungodly" it seems. It appears the atheists must be getting the upper hand there as well as a few other countries then.
|
|
whether or not you agree with the statement, it is still opinion though is it not? (And therefore not FACT!!!1eleventyone1!!) I thought this was what change was querying.
|
dmaestro
14-Jan-13, 07:23
|
I think this was an election where a majority did look at their best interests and realized the right wing didn't have them at heart. The right wants fiscal and social problems so they can use them
as a weapon to impose their agenda. Most people lose under that scenario.
|
|
itchy
Yes, of course it was opinion. Everything any of us post is opinion. It may be "fact" to the person posting it, but most thoughts are opinions.
(It's a fact that you didn't need to post that statement... we all know it).
|
|
<<Everything any of us post is opinion.>>
Erm, no, that's not true at all.
Obama is president - Fact
Obama will bring down the world economy, fact - opinion
You can't redefine a word as you see fit, ''fact'' to the person posting, as you put it, is not a fact. Facts are universal by their very definition. Surely this is obvious?
(Apologies for this esoteric derail! )
|
changeling
14-Jan-13, 07:32
|
softy
The US dollar is already going down, Australia is benefiting as our dollar goes up. Australia has quite a strong economy, our largest trading partner is now China and most of Asia anyway (at least until the mining boom fades away).
|
|
to be fair change, Australia is somewhat of an outlier when it comes to ''western'' economies. Europe suffers when the US falters.
|
|
itchy
I don't mean to "nit pick" your post, but why are you "nit picking" what I said. Wasn't my meaning clear? Or, are you just in a bad mood today?
I also believe, with you, that we should NOT be changing the meaning of words. "Fact" means fact, just as you say.
"Marriage" mean the same today as it has for thousands of years, and it should stay the same... don't you agree?
|
|
softaire
Isn't it a shame that a small percentage of people defend this country, a small percentage pay the operating costs of our government, a small percentage actually are the backbone of liberty. And now we have a majority of the people in America who want to penalize those people and use the constitution against them. America now has a majority of people who are "takers", "leechers", "bottom feeders", and basically provide nothing yet take everything and then claim victory??? Wow, all I have to say is wow. And they don't get it. I'm afraid they never will.
|
changeling
14-Jan-13, 07:42
|
Yes, Australia has very little trade with Great Britain (if any) since that idiot Heath took them into the 'common market' effectively cutting off trade with Australia and New Zealand (because the French said so!). Then started buying beef from Argentina.
Ok, not quite true.
|
|
<<I don't mean to "nit pick" your post, but why are you "nit picking" what I said.>>
Because I didn't think it was true. I am allowed to disagree right?
<<Wasn't my meaning clear?>>
Well I took from your post that you were claiming that everything posted is the opinion of the poster. If I misunderstood then I apologise, and if you wouldn't mind clarifying for me I would be grateful.
<<I also believe, with you, that we should NOT be changing the meaning of words.>>
Not precisely what I said, the words ''as you see fit'' were important. If say I were to decide to reverse left and right, I wouldn't get very far if no one else does. But if the majority accepts a new definition a word can have it's meaning changed. If this has happened with the word fact I was unaware of it.
|
dmaestro
14-Jan-13, 08:38
|
I disagree that a majority of Americans are now takers who contribute nothing. That is exactly the problem with the right. Their puppet masters tell them that and they believe it.
It is the puppet masters who are the exploiters.
|
|
You can disagree all you like. The Majority of people are takers. The bottom 50% of Americans pay 3% of all the taxes collected by the IRS. Now, I know you and other liberals are vastly superior in your education, you remind us of that all the time, but my little college degree seems to think that if the bottom 50% only pay 3%, then the top 50% must pay 97%. Now I could be wrong if were going to use some of your ALGORE fuzzy math. Now I don't for 100% sure, but i would guarantee that a OVERWHELMING majority of those bottom 50% secured their votes for obama. It is these uneducated takers whom the left preys upon and makes promises of government dependency, and enslaves you. No puppet masters here dm, but you seem to be very familiar with them yourself, I suspect you speak of experience as one of the followers to pied piper obama. It's ok, this is a good lesson for america. History books will show us to never make this kind of mistake again. It is an absolute abortion. And we know how democrats heart abortions.
|
|
jerry
... it is ever so easy to label someone as a "taker" when one receives some benefit from a government program. I'm on Social Security/Medicare, which I paid into for 45 years+ of employment; are you not including me into one of those "takers"? And, all those folks who barely make ends meet are still buying goods and services ... and keeping corporations profitable by their purchases. And, what's left of the middle class, by their sheer numbers, contribute much to those taxes that pay for infrastructure needs (gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc.) which in turn keep the country going ... and the rich, indeed rich. Why are you so down on those toward the bottom rungs who have much less ability to rise versus those who inherited their wealth, or who have the good fortune to have earned it in a country of diverse populations? You seem quite biased toward increasing the rift between the have's and the have not's ... not managing an honest balance.
|
changeling
14-Jan-13, 17:58
|
For jerry
thinkprogress.org
www.cbsnews.com
www.policymic.com
What was that about liberals being concerned about abortions jerry?
And on the economic costs:
io9.com
|
|
chaz
While you make some points worthy of discussion, can't you also see Jerrys' side? Where is your middle ground here?
I say there are a lot of "takers" in this society. Let's look at why I say this... Jerry can weigh in for himself:
49% of working Americans pay NO income tax.
Many of them get money BACK from the government as "low income" credits.
I think it is about 45 MILLION Americans (and illegal aliens) get food stamps which is a large cost to those who do pay taxes.
How many people do you think are getting unemployment insurance? How many times has that been extended? I believe that you can now be at home sitting on the couch getting paid because you got fired or laid-off for up to two years. It was supposed to be a temporary help for up to six months while you looked for work.
Many people get housing assistance and pay much lower rents than workers with income.
Many single-parent families get welfare and this becomes generational welfare... one generation after another.
Many people get grants for education.
Many people get free medical care simply because the walk into an ER.
So while you make some good points, Jerry is correct in that there are many, many takers... for one reason or another. Some have good reasons, some are takers and abusers. The fact is, however, that this country is giving out more money than it can afford.
We are broke and we can not afford to keep giving out that kind of money. If you do not realize this, your head is stuck in the sand.
|
|
Softy ...
... as I have pointed out to you on occasion, I'm trying to point out to those with extreme positions that there are other valid points to consider. Obviously, there is middle ground, but extremists don't seem to want to discuss that middle ground ... hence my post to offer a different perspective.
You bring up income tax but seem to ignore sales tax, property tax, gasoline taxes, etc.
If you want to get a job, and there aren't any, you still have to eat ... or would you rather have the have nots turn into criminal takers instead?
Unemployment? Well, that's better than making desperate people turn into criminals, isn't it?
On and on. You keep presenting the same points ... and they're just as invalid as they were before.
Having said that, yes, we need to create better incentives for getting people off of welfare, but single parents have a hard time getting jobs without assistance of some sort ... let's talk about what incentives we could create while taking care of the kids (for example).
But, bottom line, keeping people with a little bit of cash to spend keeps them civil and legal ... until you're ready to consider keeping the recipients of these benefits in a survivable situation (food, shelter, health), then you have to be prepared for the alternatives (or would you just prefer a police state jailing many more millions?). So far, you have not suggested any viable remedies other than your "let's not overtax the rich" mantra.
And, when you list scores of things, it's hard to discuss any one point in detail. Pick one, and let's aim for a point of basic agreement or at least common ground. OK? Then we can move on to another point.
|
|
|
