Shrubbie and Maineman

[Montessa]

So wait - you're saying the rich use the govt to screw the poor and thus we shouldn't have govt? How about we just toss rich folks out of govt instead?

What do you mean by "limited govt"? That has a lot of meanings to a lot of different people. Perhaps if you specified what you would limit, that would help me understand where you are coming from.

I am saying the rich ARE the government as well as, and as much as the owner(s) of corporate interests are.

Limited government is not, or should not, be a novel idea. It was a founding principle after all. The idea of limited power through checks and balances as well as purse strings via 2/3 majorities for tax increases, are not only healthy for, but necessary to liberty.

Look at the Obamacare clusterfuck? Here we have a program that has funding which is to be assessed, as a tax. Why has it not gone back to congress for a vote as a tax? I submit it's because persons from both parties stand to, and have already made, lots and lots of money. Meanwhile back at the ranch we, the people, are going to get screwed. It was so easy to do. They merely had to pitch conservatives, who knew it was a bad bill, as the greedy cruel villains and democrats as the poor and caring ones. In other words create a partisan fight. Have you never thought it highly unfair and unethical, that congress can participate in what amounts to insider trading?

 

[Truth Detector]

YES. Those are the EXACT WORDS of Roosevelt and Churchill. They PURPOSELY bombed civilians.

Wrong again; but then reading a lot of your posts, “wrong” appears to be your forte’.

Here is what Roosevelt and the allies stated at the beginning of the war:

When the war began on 1 September 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the neutral United States, issued an appeal to the major belligerents (Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Poland) to confine their air raids to military targets, and "under no circumstances undertake bombardment from the air of civilian populations in unfortified cities"[24] The British and French agreed to abide by the request, with the British reply undertaking to "confine bombardment to strictly military objectives upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all their opponents".[25] Germany also agreed to abide by Roosevelt's request and explained the bombing of Warsaw as within the agreement because it was supposedly a fortified city—Germany did not have a policy of targeting enemy civilians as part of their doctrine prior to World War II.[26][27]

Unfortunately for the Nazi’s and the Japanese, they felt compelled to ignore such agreements and proceeded to bomb the hell out of civilian areas thus initiating retaliatory type strikes from the allies. You see, no one is going to just sit on their hands while despots deliberately blow up civilian neighborhoods.

Like I said if you don’t want to see your citizens bombed in war, then you should start wars.

The same way it was won anyways; by destroying field armies and occupying land. Strategic bombing did not help end the war. At all.

Just because you are historically ignorant doesn’t mean If you keep repeating the same ignorant naïve OPINIONS it will suddenly make them factual.

Read any history book; strategic bombing is deadly effective as it was in WWII, the Korean conflict, the Vietnam conflict and every conflict thereafter. It destroys the enemies lines fo communication, transportation systems and manufacturing capacity making it extremely difficult for them to conduct war.

Boots on the ground are necessary to defeat the enemy; but without air superiority and strategic bombing, their mission would be a miserable failure.

Now go spew your nonsense somewhere else; I don’t really have time to keep lecture those who choose to remain mind numbingly ignorant.

Well, if they were doing it too, maybe we should have tried our hands at genocide. Ya know, for fairness. Can't let them damn Japs have a higher kill ratio than us.

An incredible moronic analogy from someone painfully inept at a debate and who knows they are getting beat down by the facts.
Please post anything credible that supports your laughably inept claims that strategic bombing doesn’t work. I will wait.

Yes, and bombing plenty of German women and children sure made up for the holocaust.

No; it didn’t come remotely close. But you’re offensively stupid and moronic claim has been noted.

Now run along and play with the little kids before you remove all doubt of what an incredible moron you are.

What a dumbass moronic argument; you’re truly a pathetic waste of band width comparing us to the Nazis; fucktard. How old are you, 14?

 

[tekkychick]

I am saying the rich ARE the government as well as, and as much as the owner(s) of corporate interests are.

Limited government is not, or should not, be a novel idea. It was a founding principle after all. The idea of limited power through checks and balances as well as purse strings via 2/3 majorities for tax increases, are not only healthy for, but necessary to liberty.

Look at the Obamacare clusterfuck? Here we have a program that has funding which is to be assessed, as a tax. Why has it not gone back to congress for a vote as a tax? I submit it's because persons from both parties stand to, and have already made, lots and lots of money. Meanwhile back at the ranch we, the people, are going to get screwed. It was so easy to do. They merely had to pitch conservatives, who knew it was a bad bill, as the greedy cruel villains and democrats as the poor and caring ones. In other words create a partisan fight. Have you never thought it highly unfair and unethical, that congress can participate in what amounts to insider trading?

Ok, so you see Obamacare as an overreach. But pre-ACA, insurance companies were dumping people for pre-existing conditions that had nothing to do with their current illness; they were putting limits on lifetime coverage; they were refusing to cover kids between 21 and 26 unless they were in college. So I don't see how private industry was better than govt. The "people" were already getting screwed.

In terms of insider trading by Congress - yes, that should be outlawed. But "limited govt" actually WOULDN'T restrict what congress should do. And I do appreciate you entering into a discussion.

Again, please - more examples of what you don't want govt doing...

 

[Montessa]

Senior Bush administration officials publicly flirted with the idea that Iraq transferred weapons to other nations. The claim has been promoted on conservative media and Fox News many times over the years. In 2007, Mitt Romney said that it was "entirely possible" that weapons of mass destruction were moved from Iraq to Syria during the run-up to the Iraq war. The thing is that there is absolutely zero credible evidence that this was ever the case. I called up the State Department to ask about the theory the congressman rehashed. The first spokesperson I talked to simply laughed. The second could only say that the State Department doesn't "have any information on that." For a firmer rebuttal, here's an AP report from January 2005:

ntelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information—never "a piece," said one—indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere...The [Bush] administration acknowledged...that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group’s chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization’s experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed.

But the officials familiar with the search say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/08/gop-congressman-theory-syria-got-chemical-weapons-iraq

​

Yes, there is the decidedly liberal line that it's a "laughable" idea- then there are the serious arguments that understand its plausibility- and of course there are those satellite photographs and intelligence reports that suggest its likelihood as well.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/6...pons-did-they-come-from-our-old-friend-saddam

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/apr/27/20050427-121915-1667r/?page=all

 

[Montessa]

Ok, so you see Obamacare as an overreach. But pre-ACA, insurance companies were dumping people for pre-existing conditions that had nothing to do with their current illness; they were putting limits on lifetime coverage; they were refusing to cover kids between 21 and 26 unless they were in college. So I don't see how private industry was better than govt. The "people" were already getting screwed.

In terms of insider trading by Congress - yes, that should be outlawed. But "limited govt" actually WOULDN'T restrict what congress should do. And I do appreciate you entering into a discussion.

Again, please - more examples of what you don't want govt doing...

Misbehavior by private insurers is not corrected by massive over-reach and an unworkable program. The people at least had their government to go to when insurance companies were misbehaving. When the government is in charge who do the people appeal to?

Under the auspice of limited government, you present a bill that restricts congressional members or their employees, from investing in, or financially benefiting from, any legislation that can be easily assessed as having provided them said gain.

I am comfortable that my point has been made.

 

[Truth Detector]

RETARD ALERT!
Everyone is still trying to make sense (or in the Democrats' case, make hay with) Mitt Romney's disparging remarks about "the 47 percent,"[/URL] but where did he come with that number and why are these people not paying income taxes?

While Romney's statement is technically true, and widely used conservative talking point, it's highly misleading and hardly the justifies the critique that these tax shirkers "should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Even conservative pundit Ramesh Ponnuru said that the argument was "an intellectual and political dead end." The two main problems with Romney's statement are that many of the people in that 47 percent aren't actually living off government handouts — and they don't all vote Democratic either. Economics writers all over the internet broke out the chart machines to debunk these two claims. Here's the basics:

For starters, as you probably know,: Not the numerous other taxes that people have to pay. For example, 28 percent of Americans don't pay income tax, but they do contribute payroll taxes, which is what funds the two biggest entitlement programs, Medicare and Social Security. However, they either make next to nothing in wages or they qualify for enough credits (dependent exemptions; mortgage, tuition or student loan deductions, etc) to wipe out their tax bill. A family of four that makes less than $30,000 a year can easily erase their tax liability though standard deductions. These people have jobs and may or may not receive any government assistance at all. This popular chart from the Tax Policy Center is where the 47 percent figure originates, but it shows how the numbers break down:

So that leaves 18 percent of people who do not work at all, or make so little that they don't even pay payroll taxes. More than half of that group (10 percent of people) are retired and elderly people. They live off pensions or Social Security benefits, which are not taxed. But they spent a lifetime paying into those funds and no one would call them irresponsible. Not even Mitt Romney wants to axe Social Security.

So that means that of the Americans who don't pay income taxes, 83 percent either have a job or are retired. The rest — less then 10 percent of the total population — are probably unemployed (though even unemployment benefits are taxed); are too poor to pay taxes, or simply didn't file a return. Some of them are even be rich people who found ways to avoid having any liability, although that's a very small number of Americans. Plus, depending on where they live, most people pay some form of state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, or other government fees. When you total those up and compare by income group, we all come out paying about as much in taxes as our share of income:

(One other point about payroll taxes too: If you do pay them, that's 15.3% of your income (half paid by your employer, the other half by you) or about 1.5 percent more than Mitt Romney paid in taxes in 2011.)

Speaking of RETARDS, your entire cut and paste argument reeks of stupidity and suggests that retards like you cannot read or comprehend without having their talking points spoon fed to them.

The first strawman to fall is this notion that Romney's remarks were disparaging; how so? Is factually stating that 47% of Americans are never going to vote for a Republican?

Here's his comments unedited: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

There's nothing nonfactual in the above; everything is true. But the whiney lefttards and their cabal of media mental giants saw this as a great opportunity to deflect gullible sheeple in the electorate and deflect away from Obama's miserable failure of a Presidency and claim that Mitt just doesn't care about you all.

Only brain dead buffoons like you are stupid enough to fall for such a tactic; but then, Obama and the DNC needs brain dead buffoons like you to get elected.

As for how many pay taxes; why not use REAL data instead of the brain dead cut and paste job from a leftist blog?

The FACT is that the debate was on how many are too stupid to vote any other way; they swill the Kool-Aid fed to them by the DNC and the lamestream media outlets like MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN and CBS. They are the strongest supply of low information voters for the Democrats. Then you have the brain dead rich elites who vote based on emotion and the fact that by pretending to care more than anyone than anyone else in the room and this will assuage their guilt for having a HUGE piece of the American economic pie while doing very little for those who have little.

Read, become informed instead of a mind numbed robot parroting the idiot talking points of the DNC:

You may have heard the claim that about half of Americans pay no federal income tax. That’s a true fact. My Tax Policy Center colleagues estimate, for example, that 46% of households either will pay no federal income tax in 2011 or will receive more from the IRS than they pay in.

The number one reason should come as no surprise. It’s because they have low incomes.

The second reason is that for many senior citizens, Social Security benefits are exempt from federal income taxes. That accounts for about 22% of the people who pay no federal income tax.

The third reason is that America uses the tax code to provide benefits to low-income families, particularly those with children. Taken together, the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the childcare credit account for about 15% of the people who pay no federal income tax.

http://dmarron.com/2011/07/27/why-do-half-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax/

In 2009, according to a memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation, a bi-partisan Congressional committee, only 49 percent of Americans owed money on their Federal income tax returns [source: PolitiFact]. So yes, it's true that more than half of all Americans paid no Federal income tax in the tax year 2009, and the number of people who did pay taxes was even lower -- 51 percent, not 53 percent. For tax year 2011, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only 54 percent of Americans will pay Federal income tax.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm

P.S. we are talking about Federal taxes ass clown; because it was a Presidential election dealing with the Fed.

 

[Truth Detector]

Are you kidding? Have you ever read anything besides a GOP talking points manual?

What a bunch of well rehearsed poorly thought out bullshit. Give it up lady, this isn't your bridge club.

The only ones spewing verbal sewage is the cabal of leftists like you who utter incredible stupid claims and mindlessly parrot leftist DNC talking points and Marxist rhetoric.

The well-rehearsed bullshit is all yours ass clown.

 

[Truth Detector]

Why do liberals think they have the right to determine other people's income?

Your first mistake is to believe that Liberals can think; as evidenced by this forum and the election of an inexperienced inept buffoon like Obama, Liberals seldom think. They merely parrot the moronic Marxist talking points they are fed from the DNC and mainstream media and then shriek like Harpies when their lies and distortions are pointed out.

 

[Truth Detector]

So wait - you're saying the rich use the govt to screw the poor and thus we shouldn't have govt? How about we just toss rich folks out of govt instead?

What do you mean by "limited govt"? That has a lot of meanings to a lot of different people. Perhaps if you specified what you would limit, that would help me understand where you are coming from.

That's the problem arguing with idiots, they seldom have a grasp on reality or the facts. No one can screw the poor except for the poor by refusing to work hard, refusing to get an education and refusing to avoid becoming a willing ward of the state.

Being poor is not a sin; as a matter of fact, many people CHOOSE to be that way because to become middle class and wealthy requires a lot of hard work, risk, failure and persistence. Many are just not capable of becoming a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

The problem the poor have starts with all these well meaning wealthy Liberal elitists who are willing to say things that the gullible poor like to hear in order to maintain the political power they arrogantly view as their right because only THEY know what is good for the rest of us and need to legislate us into Government dependency in order to ensure they stay in power.

Just look at all their well intentioned programs to help the black community; how's that working for them; particularly under the first black President?

Like I said, you have to be an economic moron to elect Liberals like Obama. Or, just downright stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

Talk's cheap bravs. But just for you I did a little digging into the people making the quotes. I wanted to see how many actually voted for the war resolution in 2002 and here's the result.

Bill Clinton - unable to vote
Madeline Albright - unable to vote
Sandy Berger - unable to vote
Al Gore - unable too vote

Robert Byrd - voted no
Carl Levin - voted no
Bob Graham - voted no
Nancy Pelosi - voted no

Jay Rockefeller - voted yes
John Kerry - voted yes
Henry Waxman - voted yes
Hillary Clinton - voted yes
Tom Daschle - voted yes

Your list named 13 people. Only five of those people actually voted for the resolution. This means when push came to shove, eight either couldn't vote at all, or reconsidered their comments and voted no. So when Snopes talks about context, etc. this is what it means. Talk is cheap. Actions count. And when it came time to act, only five of the people on the list actually voted for the war.

Keep this in mind the next time you try to say all these Dems were actually in favor of the war when all they really did was give an opinion on Saddam.

What an utterly stupid argument; but then, you are an Obama voter thus making the case that he got elected by fools and retards.

 

[Truth Detector]

The boat belongs to Kerry's wife. Is it possible she made the decision where to dock it?

Who the fuck cares; everything belongs to his wife. But what's hers is also his and they desperately try to avoid paying their taxes just as many other rich elitist democrats who spew their Marxist verbal garbage for the consumption of gullible uneducated fools like you.

 

[Truth Detector]

Perhaps Romney should have SAID "47% don't pay fed income tax" - but he didn't did he? Are we supposed to read his mind?

And really? YOU REALLY THINK THE ONLY ISSUE PEOPLE VOTE ON IS FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATE?

wow.

Romney had NOTHING to offer for the voters except cutting tax rates? That's it? Really?

Good thing he lost if that's all he had to offer.

You are the perfect illustration of a low information voting fool who still swallows the moronic Marxist talking points fed to her by the left.

:clapping:

 

[tekkychick]

Seriously, TD? 7 posts in 19 min? Glad I have you on ignore


Today, 06:12 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:15 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:18 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:25 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:27 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:29 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:31 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.

 

[christiefan915]

Who the fuck cares; everything belongs to his wife. But what's hers is also his and they desperately try to avoid paying their taxes just as many other rich elitist democrats who spew their Marxist verbal garbage for the consumption of gullible uneducated fools like you.

Uh, no. Their finances are separate. They file taxes separately. The Heinz money is in trust for the Heinz children. That's a fact.

But if you think you can prove otherwise, do so. Because right now it's looking like you're out of your depth here and reduced to sputtering insults.

 

[christiefan915]

Seriously, TD? 7 posts in 19 min? Glad I have you on ignore


Today, 06:12 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:15 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:18 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:25 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:27 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:29 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.
Today, 06:31 PM
Truth Detector
Verified User
This message is hidden because Truth Detector is on your ignore list.

You're not missing anything. The angry little man is only spewing trash.

 

[NOVA]

You are denying your own words. Therefore you are not worth talking to. Of course, I knew that

YOUR WORDS:



That was post number 304.

Now you are trying to squirm and pretend you said something else. But you didn't.

My words and posts stand as written.....and certainly don't contradict one another in the slightest....

I denied nothing.....

I just elaborated to help a simple minded thing like you understand what you seemed not to understand in the first simplified version....to witch you
seemed to have read things into that aren't there....like

1/So YOU said there is no reason to vote for Romney except for cutting income taxes. (I didn't use the word except)

2/YOU said 47% of the people in this country wouldn't vote for him because he's not cutting their income taxes. (you can't cut taxes on those that don't pay the taxes)

3/SO YOU said he had nothing else to offer. (I didn't say that at all)

any mis-understanding on your part I clarified with this

"Romney was saying that those 47% would not vote for him based on his cutting income taxes on those that do pay them...."

the entire discussion is about the 47% and the fact that they don't pay any federal inc. tax.


You've been schooled and you know it....and you last post is laughable....but you are correct in on one thing....this discussion is over and you're dismissed...

 

[Rune]

Seriously, I did not lob insults. I may have responded pointedly TO insults, but hardly began them. I can certainly assert that FACT in this thread quite easily. I note you did not quote the post I responded to- telling THAT! I also should point out that you needed to assert that I am a "retard" to a post I made. I had not called you or anyone else any name(s). I suppose that was also deserved because, well, you said so. I suggest you stop behaving like a 3rd grader if you want me to pay attention to you after this post.

I have personally read your and evince's posts packed full of insult and invective in this and other threads. My holding up a mirror to the two of you is entirely within the bounds of polite rebuttal. Especially when you consider you made the first personal attacks.

Your points have failed. Both the personal insults whine, as well as the economic truths you attempted to attack.

Nice try lady, but you still never replied to my points. I am here to debate and don't give a shit if I insult you or you insult me.
You are not debating, you are insulting and whining about insulting. I don't give a FUCK if you pay attention to me or not.

You are nothing more than a conservative hack, you have nothing to offer but conservative talking points (lies) and because you believe the lies, you are just another conservatard.

 

[Rune]

The rates paid by EVERY taxpayer have nothing to do with your occupation....so don't talk stupid....

The cap. gains rates for EVERYONE are the same for EVERYONE....it don't matter if you're a plumber or a CEO.....

Are you people really so ignorant of the most basic of tax law. ???

You are so full of shit bravo, Those who can claim their income as capital gains pay lower rates, period. You can't lie your way past this fact, so STFU.

 

[Rune]

Don't advertise you stupidity in public so much....I'm embarrassed for you...

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid Majority of US Tax Percentage

Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.
http://tinyurl.com/cd9yyms

And what percentage of the income they earned is irrelevant. We are all free to earn whatever we can...

Yes retard and that would be very meaningful if federal income tax were the only tax, but it's not.

 

[Rune]

Funny thing is, when you listen to libs they'll tell you that the 14th Amendment was passed to prevent voting majorities from passing laws that unequally impact voting minorities.

Yet they have no problem when 99% of the population gang up and pass tax laws that unequally impact 1% of the population.

Oh, they'll bluster and bloviate and rationalize, that's for sure. But none of it will fit into the square definition they've created for the 14th Amendment.

Wow, you truly are bizzarro man. Explains the avatar, finally.