Political Shitshooting

12 Pages
« First
←
7
8
9
10
11
→
Last »

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

Political Shitshooting "previously: YEAH! WOOHOO! Liberals got the same healthcare pla"

wayskobfssae

#241 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:08 AM

Mad Max RW, on 05 August 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

So instead of acknowledging FACTS you simply dismiss them. Typical liberal response. You're living in a dream world. A house of cards. And it is all collapsing. Obama and the entire Democratic party will implode on itself because people like you think it's easier to blame somebody else for your failures. Try growing a pair by doing the hard work and taking some responsibility. History is going to look back at this time and laugh at you.

When you're done raging, type out that paragraph again and maybe it will make sense. You're raging too hard for me to even comprehend exactly what it is you think I'm dismissing, OR what I'm blaming on someone else. The recession happened BEFORE Obama took office. The pattern was already woven into economic fabric. So who is in denial?

Quote

Ask yourself this: why do we need to raise taxes on the "rich"? What will it do? Pay off the debt? You know if the tax rate was raised to 100% of their income it would take centuries to put a dent in it. So what's the real reason? We already have the highest tax rate in the world with all the businesses leaving. You just parrot the same nonsense talking points without knowing what any of it really means. Another talking point I hear from liberals is the debt doesn't matter. In that case why not abolish all taxes? If we don't need to pay for anything and none of it truly matters. Why tax?

Now who is being illiterate? If you actually paid attention, you would've known I was referring to ONE incident, an incident in which the nation was literally held hostage until Obama had no choice but to surrender and let the debt ceiling get raised... AGAIN. Taxing the rich wasn't the point. The point was it's an example of just how stubborn everyone can be, and why putting the blame of the entire government solely on the President is utterly ludicrous. I never said ANYTHING about it REMOVING the debt, only preventing it from getting worse. Removing the Bush tax breaks for the rich (tax breaks that should never have been there in the first place) was one thing that was put forth as a solution to preventing a need to raise the debt ceiling.

As for liberals saying the debt doesn't matter, I'm now where Achenar was on the issue of Obama's birthplace, because I have never heard ANYONE, Liberal or otherwise, say that the debt is irrelevant. Anyone who believes that, is probably thinking isolationism, feeling that the best thing America could do is cut itself off from the global economy altogether, rely entirely on its own resources, and tell its creditors, "Tough luck."

rasmus thorup

#242 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:11 AM

Mad Max RW, i don't know why, but it actually annoys me to see you downvote wayskobfssae in a fair discussion, just because you disagree with him. I don't see the point, so can you tell me?
And downvoting me in another topic clearly shows that you are mad.

This post has been edited by rasmus thorup: 05 August 2012 - 11:12 AM

Mad Max RW

#243 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:17 AM

wayskobfssae, on 05 August 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Removing the Bush tax breaks for the rich (tax breaks that should never have been there in the first place) was one thing that was put forth as a solution to preventing a need to raise the debt ceiling.

Do you know why those tax breaks were put in place by Bush? Because Clinton left us in a recession. Remember the dot-com bubble? Silicon Valley was destroyed and a similar collapse of 2008 would have happened much sooner. By 2001 when Bush was in office the economy had totally stalled and our technology sector was going down the toilet. People needed a reason to not give up.

rasmus thorup, it annoys me when you continuously downvote without ever posting a reply. Don't like it when sombody does that to you?

This post has been edited by Mad Max RW: 05 August 2012 - 11:19 AM

rasmus thorup

#244 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:22 AM

Mad Max RW, on 05 August 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

rasmus thorup, it annoys me when you continuously downvote without ever posting a reply. Don't like it when sombody does that to you?

The more you downvote the less each downvote means. When you keep downvoting, i get the idea that you only do it because you are angry.

Mad Max RW

#245 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:25 AM

I downvoted a couple of his posts because they were bad posts. They ignore reality and facts without sounding the least bit intelligent. Another poster, Captain Awesome, I disagree with almost completely. But at least he seems to know what he's talking about and formed opinions on his own.

rasmus thorup

#246 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:30 AM

So in this little conversation, you have downvoted wayskobfssae because his posts were "bad". And you have downvoted me out of anger because i downvoted you. You sure are fun to discuss with.

Mad Max RW

#247 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:31 AM

Well it got you to reply for a change, didn't it?

rasmus thorup

#248 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:36 AM

My first post here wasn't because you downvoted me, i saw that afterwards. I just wanted to tell you that a discussion with downvotes is not a discussion, but a flamewar.

Mad Max RW

#249 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:42 AM

rasmus thorup, on 05 August 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

My first post here wasn't because you downvoted me, i saw that afterwards. I just wanted to tell you that a discussion with downvotes is not a discussion, but a flamewar.

If there is a flamewar then wayskobssae's oh so clever "umad?" quip incited it.

wayskobfssae

#250 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:43 AM

Mad Max RW, on 05 August 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

I love how yet again you completely ignored the entire point of my post and attacked the one sentence you knew you could punch a hole in.

But don't bother saying anything to it now, because you've made your intentions quite clear while bickering with ramsus.

Mad Max RW, on 05 August 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

If there is a flamewar then wayskobssae's oh so clever "umad?" quip incited it.

I said umad because you are. In fact, as far as people who can do it without resorting to cussing are concerned, you're one of the best examples of obvious rage I've ever seen.

Mad Max RW, on 05 August 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Well since you have now told someone else that you think I ignore reality and facts and don't sound the least bit intelligent, then there is no point in furthering this discussion with you. That you can't even accept how vaguely most of those facts are capable of pinning Obama as the culprit is downright laughable. It's quite obvious that you are intent on viewing me as an uneducated, illiterate, Liberal parotting moron. You are so cemented in that belief, that it wouldn't matter what I say or do. You have judged everything I say before I even say it. Just like it won't matter what Obama says or does. You will still hate everything about him.

But maybe even that is not actually my opinion. I think I might have read in a Liberal article somewhere that there's no point in having discussions with Mad Max. So there I go again with my parotting.

Enjoy the private ego-maniac empire you have running here.

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 05 August 2012 - 11:49 AM

Mad Max RW

#251 Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:47 AM

The term "cut and run" is appropriate in your case. Hah. You never even attempted to take on one thing I listed earlier or acknowledge the last few ridiculous liberal talking points I shredded. This went exactly as I thought it would.

Prove me wrong by saying something that isn't a liberal cliche.

This post has been edited by Mad Max RW: 05 August 2012 - 11:48 AM

wayskobfssae

#252 Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:02 PM

Mad Max RW, on 05 August 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

The term "cut and run" is appropriate in your case. Hah. You never even attempted to take on one thing
I listed earlier

I addressed it, and also explained why I won't bother attacking it. It would be a complete waste of my time to type a post that long, just for you respond with some generalized quip about how ignorant I am.

Quote

or acknowledge the last few ridiculous liberal talking points I shredded.

While you were wasting time "shredding the last few ridiculous liberal talking points", you were completely ignoring the point I was actually making.

Quote

Prove me wrong by saying something that isn't a liberal cliche.

People dislike being clubbed in the head with baseball bats. Therefore people dodging baseball bats is a cliche. Should they stand there and get their skull smashed just so they're not being cliche? Just because something is a cliche doesn't make it wrong.

I'm not stopping because your arguments are concrete. They're not. I'm stopping because you, personally, are thinking about as objectively as a Westboro Baptist. You are a complete ass, who is only arguing for the sake of arguing, and I pity anyone who has to debate anything with you. Carve another notch into your keyboard.

This post has been edited by wayskobfssae: 05 August 2012 - 12:11 PM

trustn0!

#253 Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:07 PM

wow

Its like im actually browsing /pol/

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#254 Posted 05 August 2012 - 03:57 PM

We should raise taxes on the rich because they pay less. I'd also be in favor of lowering taxes for everyone else, or abolishing income tax altogether. The point isn't that the rich should pay MORE, they should pay the SAME. Why do they get a break just for being successful, why does everybody else have to pay more because of their lot in life?

Also, I laugh heartily at anyone who truly believes that the president can do jack shit about anything or has any authority. Our owners have you by the balls because you're an ignoramus who wants to believe in that dogshit we call the American Dream.

This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 05 August 2012 - 04:03 PM

Jeff

#255 Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:04 PM

Captain Awesome, on 05 August 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

I'd also be in favor of lowering taxes for everyone else, or abolishing income tax altogether.

Income taxes pay for the services and such that the government provides. Least where I live. I'm not American, so things are a bit different where I am. It pays for things like roads, education, and all that stuff. So without income taxes, you'd have massive pot holes in your roads or other issues.

This post has been edited by Jeff: 05 August 2012 - 08:04 PM

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#256 Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:33 PM

Of course, but you're missing the point in what I'm saying. However, most proponents of abolishing income tax propose that we introduce a flat rate tax on goods and services. Might work, probably not.

ReaperMan

#257 Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:39 PM

Yatta for president.

Jeff

#258 Posted 05 August 2012 - 09:31 PM

Captain Awesome, on 05 August 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Sorry, I just read your post as it was worded.

Mad Max RW

#259 Posted 06 August 2012 - 06:43 AM

Captain Awesome, on 05 August 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Also, I laugh heartily at anyone who truly believes that the president can do jack shit about anything or has any authority.

Did you forget about the hundreds of executive orders? http://1461days.blog...ent-obamas.html
The latest one he is about to sign into law is the cybersecurity bill everybody here was against: http://thehill.com/b...ve-order-option
Remember I said they'd find a method to pass it anyway? There ya go. Executive Order.

This post has been edited by Mad Max RW: 06 August 2012 - 06:44 AM

Inspector Lagomorf

Glory To Motherland!

#260 Posted 06 August 2012 - 07:27 AM

Jeff, on 05 August 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

But... but... we didn't build those! Somebody else made that happen!

CruX

#261 Posted 06 August 2012 - 07:29 AM

ReaperMan, on 05 August 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Yatta for president.

I dunno, man. CWC is spending a lot more time on campaigning...

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#262 Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:22 AM

Mad Max RW, on 06 August 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

You really think the President is in control? Seriously? I want a guy like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson to win just to prove this point. The President does what he is told and allowed to do.

Achenar, on 06 August 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

But... but... we didn't build those! Somebody else made that happen!

Uhhh.... actually, that's precisely what Obama was saying. Everybody's tax dollars pays for those things, business owners didn't pay and build them themselves, they put a portion of their money into the system that builds and maintains those things. Please lay off the conservative propaganda.

This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 06 August 2012 - 09:24 AM

Inspector Lagomorf

Glory To Motherland!

#263 Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:25 AM

Captain Awesome, on 06 August 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

No propaganda. I'm not going to go into an argument about what Obama said or what he meant to say (either way it was a major gaffe). Who pays the most taxes in our society that go toward our roads and bridges? Hint: It's not the bottom 50% of income earners.

I see what you're trying to say, but the effective tax rate in this country is utterly messed up. I get what you were talking about that the rich should pay the same as the poor, but because of the income that I make (about $20K taxable), my effective income tax rate is basically 0%.Doesn't seem like I'm paying my fair share.

This post has been edited by Achenar: 06 August 2012 - 09:44 AM

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#264 Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:47 AM

Achenar, on 06 August 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

How exactly is this a gaffe?

Quote

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business–you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Even the top 10% of income earners didn't pay for half of this shit because it was built before they ever started paying taxes. You have to be a greedy fuck to think that you shouldn't have to pay into the very system you benefited from being a part of. Any American business exists primarily because of our society. If things were in chaos, do you think anyone would actually bother to pay for a car?

This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 06 August 2012 - 09:48 AM

Mad Max RW

#265 Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:45 AM

Captain Awesome, on 06 August 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

And they do. More than anybody else. The problem is most of the money the government takes goes into wasteful spending while the infrastructure continues to crumble. Parts of my state of Connecticut they're doing a great job. Cross the border into New York or Massachusetts and it's another story entirely. Go into the mid west and it's a disaster. Then instead of fixing harbors in Florida the federal government wants a new bridge or highspeed rail nobody asked for. Every single one of these big projects go way over budget, forcing the local governments to pick up the tab. Look at California and all the cities declaring bankruptcy because of the government's wasteful spending. That's the model they are forcing onto the whole country.

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#266 Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:06 PM

Oh no doubt. It took the VA Department of Transportation about 7 years to fix our drive way. The way it met with the road, every time it rained there would be a frickin' ravine. They've refilled it with grave hundreds of times, they just finally decided it'd be cheaper to pave the problem area. Big dummies.

This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 06 August 2012 - 12:06 PM

Danukem

Duke Plus Developer

#267 Posted 06 August 2012 - 03:28 PM

Mad Max RW, on 06 August 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

Look at California and all the cities declaring bankruptcy because of the government's wasteful spending. That's the model they are forcing onto the whole country.

I'm not sure if this fundamentally effects your point, but a lot of that spending goes to pension/retirement funds that are mandated by agreements that the state and cities entered into during better economic times. Imo the single biggest cause of California's budgetary problems are the public sector unions, which have amassed an enormous amount of power and are able to buy themselves influence with money that they take from taxpayers who have no say in the matter (e.g. they use dues for political campaigns, and they collect dues even from non-members who happen to work in government jobs). There are checks in place for private sector unions. A private sector union that demands too much at the expense of the business will ultimately lose out because the business will fall to competitors. But the government has a monopoly on the services it provides, so a public sector union can go unchecked. Thus we have lavish pension plans and benefit packages, and very high wages for government workers (by and large...I'm sure there are exceptions) at a time when we can't afford it.

http://blogs.sacbee....-in-nation.html

Quote

Full-time monthly pay for March 2010 in the District of Columbia averaged $5,900, followed by California at $5,774 and New Jersey' s $5,540. Nationally, the average pay for full-time state and local public employees was $4,388 for the March 2010 period sampled by the bureau.

That's $5,774 average pay per month. And that doesn't even count benefits. California also has a relatively low number of state workers per resident, which explains why we pay so much and get so little in return. Unions look after the members they have, but they don't necessarily want new members. If they have a choice between existing members getting paid more, and having more members paid less, they will take the first option.

Mad Max RW

#268 Posted 06 August 2012 - 04:16 PM

Uhoh, you are speaking truthfully about the big unions. Some people might call you racist or a "scab".

ReaperMan

#269 Posted 06 August 2012 - 06:14 PM

Mad Max RW, on 06 August 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

Then instead of fixing harbors in Florida the federal government wants a new bridge or highspeed rail nobody asked for.

To be honest our whole infrastructure is in desperate of an overhaul, its in really bad shape. Which btw includes your harbors, bridges and high-speed rail.

Inspector Lagomorf

Glory To Motherland!

#270 Posted 06 August 2012 - 06:24 PM

ReaperMan, on 06 August 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

To be honest our whole infrastructure is in desperate of an overhaul, its in really bad shape. Which btw includes your harbors, bridges and high-speed rail.

I question the wisdom or even the feasibility of constructing high-speed rail in a fashion that mirrors our interstate highway system, as I assume that's what you're referring to (most urban metropolises have their own intracity rail system). Our closest thing to that in the U.S. - Amtrak - loses millions of dollars a year (and that's just in food costs) and is very limited in its ability to move people around the country quickly and inexpensively. Like it or not, our interstate highway is here to stay.