for my conservative readers...
per the request of our conservative friend, Tycoon, who grew tired of the fat guy, some happy dogblogging...
we love everyone here in the Moonbat, er, Savage Heavens...
posted by christopher cunningham at 6:30 AM
53 Comments:
nice example of liberal tolerance.
i am conservative, therefore, i am an ass.
that makes you a bigot.
and you are humorless too.
"BIGOT: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.."
except my "opinions" are proven facts and your "opinions" are political spin for the benefit of your own selfish ideologies.
and why do I have to be tolerant of ignorant, factless assholes in general? I didn't sign on to any LIBERAL PLAYBOOK that precludes my thinking that the conservative philosophy produces more assholes per capita than ANY liberal philosophy. that's just the reality.
and who's intolerant anyway? just cause I think the policies of conservatives result in the net loss of HUMANITY in people, just cause I don't subscribe to the lie that CAPTIALISM is equal to a RELIGION and there can be NO OTHER WAY OF LIFE?
I don't have to be tolerant of YOU buddy. I can hate just as well as you conservative ideologues. better, in fact, because liberals are the ones who've made this country what it is, so I've got my high horse and pedestal to stand on and fling shit down upon your leering, television dulled face.
prove me wrong, my conservative asshole friend...
show me how great the conservative movement is:
economy? iraq? terror? healthcare? the countries infrastructure? voting rights and voting systems? outsourcing? american civil liberties?
jesus, you people are uninformed and it won't change anytime soon.
have fun eating your paste.
and thanks for dropping by.
well you if don't have to be tolerant of me, then I don't have to be tolerant either. just wanted to clear that up.
your opinions are facts, and mine benifit myself ideologies...
whatever happened to nothing is black and white?
we are uninformed? another gross generalization. how about this...since Republicans are so uninformed, lets fight together to ban high school drop outs from voting. I'll support it if you support it. we will see which party wins less as a result.
you believe in keeping the government out of our pants....especially the back pocket.
less government = more freedom.
also, could you try to be civil please.
first, I don't have to be civil, this is my blog.
secondly, I can agree with you TO SOME DEGREE that "less govt = more freedom." and on keeping them out of our PRIVATE LIVES ENTIRELY, so I guess we're not two aliens from different planets.
govt's responsibility is to maintain an army to keep the king of england out of our faces and to perform those services too large in scope and too important in HUMAN TERMS to leave to for-profit private groups with no motive other than the bottom line such as DISASTER RELIEF and SOME regulations on the environment/public health.
and uninformed isn't the right term, most conservatives are WILLFULLY IGNORANT, and by this I mean they CHOOSE only the excerpted "facts" that support their questionable position in the first place.
of course, NOTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE and I'm sure you don't eat babies (do you?) so maybe we can have a discussion after all.
and as for fighting to ban folks who vote, how many of your so called dropouts actually vote anyway, smart guy? what a silly argument. instead, let's work to reform campaign financing so that MONEY isn't the only factor in electing officials, and ISSUES become most important. let's make sure that you and I can run against steve forbes money, since we know more than them anyway, right? you in?
didn't think so. that isn't very captialist is it? money and the "free market" decide everything right?
say, this isn't being tolerant is it? I wouldn't want to be too kind...
I'll be back later, I gotta step out and perform some abortions, cash my welfare checks and support the hippiehomomexifascist movement.
I'm sure you've got to call in to Limbaugh or Hannity. don't rot your brains too much over on Powerline or LGFootballs, and try not to start any illegal wars or wiretap anyone.
more later, my mogul comrade
Media Tycoon,
I know that you not only want to ban high school dropouts from voting. If the GOP had their way, they would ban all blacks from voting too.
Disallowing voting rights based on level of education is not only unconstitutional, but un-American. Just like many "Conservative" ideas. Also, I'
m not ignorant of the facts of your side. My father is a conservative talk show host that has had his show run along side Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, G Gordon Liddy, Bill O'Reilly, etc...
I have been argiuing this all of my life.
Bill
my point of saying lets ban high school drop outs from voting is that they vote heavily democratic. without them, Democrats could not win national elections. however, i wouldn't actually want to ban them from voting, it was just a joke.
everything else you said was reasonable and there is no reason to argue with it...besides the willfully ignorant part. obviously, libs do the same thing with more guns and less crime, the welfare state and dependency, the correlation of having children out of wedlock and poverty, etc. i'd be willing to say that most people don't care enough about politics to research everything...and that transcends political affiliation, race, nationality, and gender.
bill,
it was a joke. its a little something i use any time people say conservatives are stupid/ignorant. of course i don't believe it. it is just the way i throw the ignorant thing back in the face of libs. chill out, my girlfriend is black and I don't support taking away her right to vote.
HI Media Tycoon.
I can agree on some of your points. I am a far left liberal, but that does not mean that I support EVERYTHING that the far left supports. I believe in some gun control (kids should not be buying guns at gushows), but fully support the right to own a weapon (I don't support the "shoot first" laws that have passed in some states.)
On the other hand, I can't understand how a far right conservative could support this president. Increased defecit spending & massive increase in the size of government. It will be very hard for the GOP to refer to DEMs and tax and spend and wanting big government. That was a label that your side used very effictively until GWB took that away from you. The idea of tax and spend and big government is a label that the GOP will shy away from to the comic levels.
And as far as the Black vote issue, you may not feel that way, but I have heard it said my many conservatives. I could quote them directly, but that languge and those ideas have no place in civilized society....
All best,
Bill
Voting in ignorance is a real problem but I think it benefits the republicans to a greater extent and isn't based strictly on education. That High school dropouts are more likely to vote for dems has more to do with the fact that their economic reality precludes the delusions necessary to buy into a repug agenda -- at least much of the time and not so much in the south.
The answer is to have better voter and issue education and to bring people into the process in a way that will make them less likely to injure themselves and the rest of us (assuming that voting really matters anymmore anyway).
It is true that nothing is black and white but I think the key to what divides the "left" from the "right" has to do with how our place in and responsibility to society is invisioned. Some of us realize that we are mutually dependent on each other and on the environment for our survival and the freedom to live a decent life. Those that feel this way realize that we owe each other our support as a society and that governmebt exists to "provide for the general welfare" as the embodiment of our collective will.
Others are deluded with the myth of complete autonomy and "individualism" and, while they may not accept such basic science as "evolution" because of attachment to mysticism, they fully accept social Darwinism, meaning, everyone for themselves and to hell with those that can't make it. That attitude wunds up being far more costly in many ways.
well, I've nothing to add to this fine discussion.
except that I appreciate mr. tycoon's civility and his not resorting to ad hominems, etc. I'll also add that I support the 2nd Amendment as well as the 15th.
thanks for the comments.
(and the fat guy laughing at you is intended with amusement not anger...)
I believe in low taxes above pretty much everything else (politically speaking). I believe this because I believe the government tends to waste money. Whether it is with its hurricane relief with Katrina, social security, bridges to nowhere, or education, I am against it all.
Another reason that I believe in low taxes is that I believe that I will be rich as crap one day. Obviously, I don’t want to spend hours trying to figure out how to pay taxes, to an entity that I believe is basically stealing my money.
As for social Darwinism, I do believe in it (kind of)...and I hate to say it, but it’s a good thing. Do you think Paris Hiltons kids are going to be rich? I’m not going to say it’s impossible for them to maintain their lifestyle, but eventually, I wouldn’t be surprised if that family has no money. Bad decisions will put people on the bottom, and in return, it will create hungry people with a desire to succeed. The most driven people I know come from the bottom. My grandpa (mom's side) and my dad are both good examples of that. I notice a pattern that once people get rich, their kids tend to be spoiled, and are often lazy. As a result, they often become losers. It’s a natural cycle and it is unavoidable. That’s not really Darwinism, because the "losers" don't die off, they just go back to the bottom of the economic ladder.
Another thing about social Darwinism is that when government provides for the poor, there is no real compassion involved. It is a mindless process with no real human interaction. If you are truly for compassion for the poor and less fortunate, you should be against welfare in my opinion. Americans’ have the idea that the poor are helped enough (by government), and therefore, don’t need to personally put forth an effort.
In my world, the federal gov would consist of a 5% sales tax, the three branches of government, and a small army that would protect the border in peacetime. More conservatives believe in this than you think. Are their dumb conservatives? Of course there are, but to pretend that they are especially dumb because they don’t think like you is pretty absurd. Misguided, wrong priorities, even just plain wrong....any of those are legit, but to call someone stupid because they have a different philosophy than you is, in itself, stupid.
p.s. I am over the fat guy calling me an ass and laughing at me.
you make some good points, tycoon. and I'll do you the solid of putting up something pretty instead of the fat guy.
I'll address your comment after dinner, but some of it is pretty well reasoned...
and not all anyone is "stupid" or anything else. superlatives have no place in a resonable discussion...
Support of "low taxes" is non-support of society and the way the right-wing destorys any ability of gevernment to provide the basic services people need to live. The private sector cannot and will not provide these services because there is no profit in it and church efforts will never be adequate. What those taxes pay for and who pays them are important issues. The burden should not be heavily weighted on working people and the poor. Corporations and the wealthy need to pay more and the money should go toward education, infrastructure and human services instead of to Halliburton, Locheed-Marietta and the NSA/Pentagon.
Social Darwinism is barbarism, plain and simple. Human services as defined and applied in our boss's paradise have sometimes been a trap that holds people back and punishes them for their need but that is only because of the way they are provided. They have been designed to fail, however, they have still been, for the money spent, an overwhelming success. Human services should be there for everyone and should enrich our society by providing opportunities for education and personal improvement as well as care for those who need it. Any one of us can suddenly find ourselves disabled and unable to work, Should we be discarded like trash? What kind of security is that? What kind of life? What kind of society? We can do beter but we have to start by removing power from wealth. We must move from a corporate oligarchy to a social democracy, from barbarism to civilization.
LMAO
Listen, tycoon, & everyone else--if you haven't lived it, you don't KNOW it. You hate social programs; they waste money, they engender laziness instead of a thrifty (broke) working class. Maybe--who knows. But what I know is this. 21 years ago my mom got cancer. I was 10. My brother was 4. My Mom was a harding working contract painter & yes single mom providing for us before she got sick. When she got sick we were given $201 a month + food stamps & gov't subsidies (cheese, bread, milk). Rent was $200 on an old, broken down trailer. Apparently churches helped us pay the phone bill so we could call the doctor if there was a complication during the 18months & 3 bouts of chemo while she fought the cancer doctors gave her a 15% chance of surviving. She lived. & say what you will about goverment programs, how wasteful they are, whatever--UNTIL YOU'VE LIVED ON $1 REAL U.S.DOLLAR A MONTH you really don't know what you are talking about. Clearly i don't know you, clearly I have no idea what sort of struggles you've survive in your life...but I'm relatively confident that you haven't lived off of a government program when you needed it most. If you had, you'd understand how necessary it can be to those who need it. & hey man, pray you never need help, pray you never stumble, pray you do get to become richer than god & it's never a problem for you. Because it's hard a shit to get through something liek that. I know. I was 10 & I lived it.
great stuff, h, dem, and of course, the well thought out and perfectly reasoned position taken by partisan poet.
and tycoon, "LMAO?"
what kind of "reasonable debate" is that kind of high school crap?
you've no supportable position to defend, I guess.
figures. how many times have conservatives resorted to derisive laughter and ad hominems when their arguments have been shown to be appallingly false and misguided, terribly cruel and selfish, pure lies and misinformation?
endlessly, I'd say.
seems the last bastion of the conservative worldview:
"go fuck yourself, liberal..."
and no real leg to stand on.
LMAO? Blow it out your reactioanry ass (because that's where your reptilian brain stem seems to be located.
I worked in an ER doing crisis work when people would come in and be beligerant becuase their kid tried to kill himself (or a sibling) or had a psychotic break and there was nothing to offer becuase they couldn't afford insurance, becuase the beds were not available due to cuts in coverage and cuts in state funding. "We're tax-paying citiznes!" they'd cry. Vote repug? I'd ask. You get what you're willing to put in. The right-wing is corporate dictatorship and cares for nothing that doesn't expand their profit margin.
There are 2 kinds of people that vote Republican: wealthy corporate tychoons looking after their own vested interest and ignorant fools who do themselves personal injury by buying into a rotten, racist ideology based on lies, nationalist illusions and short-sighted greed.
I'm curious, tycoon, how you see a difference between the pic of the fat man laughing--remember, the thing you took such offense to, the thing that originally started this debate--& your "LMAO"?
How are they different?
Or, is it fine because YOU said "LMAO" & your ideals & feelings are liquid & convenient...based on personal exemptions for your behaviors while judging from your diamond & platnium pedstal on high, the actions of the lowly working class...
Just curious...
i said LMAO too teh new pictures...not anyones arguments.
to clear up my last post which had some gramatical mistakes and may not have been clear.
the first pictures was of a fat guy laughing, and then you took it off and put up dogs which i thought was funny.
Racism is not an argument, it is a cheap trick used by people that don't know how to argue against sound economics. i am willing to bet that i am less white and have less white friends than most people posting in this forum. believing in free enterprise does not make me a racist, it means i believe in freedom. free enterprise is actually a liberal idea because believing in it means you want less government. In American terms, i am conservative, but in worldly terms, i am the ultimate liberal (i guess besides those that are anarchist).
my point is this, if someone doesn’t want to do something, they shouldn’t have to do it. coercion is the opposite of freedom. anytime government steps in, coercion exists. this doesn’t mean social programs cant exist, but just not at the federal level. there is no reason that the feds have to be involved in any welfare programs. it promotes waste pure and simple.
as for me not ever having to rely on welfare. no I haven't, but i grew up in a lower middle class home. i am by no means rich, at least not by American standards. you say there are two types of people that vote rep, i would say the same for Dems.
1. poor uneducated people that get manipulated easily...ie those rich people are rich at your expense.
2. the rich people (Kerry, Kennedy, soros) that use the poor against everyone else that just wants to be left alone economically. usually these rich people feel guilty about their wealth, but rather than giving it away, they make everyone else give their wealth away.
(I DON'T actually believe that crap, but it is just as absurd as what you said about the two types of people who vote Republican.)
my last point is this. time is money. when the government coerces your money from you, it is also coercing your time. in other words, when you go to work, the first couple ours of the day are really in service of Big Brother. that is 100X creepier to me than NSA wiretaps or Club Gitmo.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
if you are confused, welfare should be handled by the states. the reason is that some states may want limitless welfare, and other may not want any at all. the idea that capitalism is bad for poor people almost deserves a "LMAO" response though.
America has more poor immigrants than any other country. i wonder why that is? it's for the same reason my family came here. it is the same reason most people came to the US. it is because the state does not stop you from doing your best, and you are therefore only limited by yourself. my family went from being ravaged by the Japanese in the philipines to a successful middle class family in just 1 generation. racism, luck, and rich people couldnt stop us...and we are closer to the rule than the exception.
the same thing happened on my european side. they went from poor canadian farmers to a family of doctors and dentists in 1 generation. luck had nothing to do with it. they were dedicated to success and stuck with it.
so are all the poor people that come here stupid? they come here because of our economic system right? they must be just as dumb as the poor people taht vote republican. BTW. i dont know where you get this idea that a lot of poor people vote republican. its the opposite. just as many poor people vote republican as rich people vote democratic.
ironically, most "poor" people are also young people. the reason tehy are "poor" is because they havent really started working yet.
interestingly enough, Dems benifit by having lots of poor people, and republican benifit from having lots of rich people.
i would rather have the party that promotes the rich than a party that promotes poverty.
A couple more points.
With the federal government out of most aspects of politics, spending will automatically become less wasteful. The bridge to nowhere is a good example. The bridge would have cost $250 million to make. If the state of Alaska had control of that money, there is no way they would have spent it on that bridge. However, because of special interests and pork barrel spending, situations like that happen all the time. This brings me to my next point.
Money is power, and power corrupts. Therefore, the more money in Washington, the more corrupt and more powerful they will be. This is almost a liberal talking point. Libs talk about how much they hate the power and corruption in Washington. For your own sake, you should want less money in government hands. In fact, I would make the argument that the bigger the federal government, the more likely people would be willing to pay the financial price of a costly war. If the government were tight fisted, a great increase in any spending would be immediately noticed and would be more of an outrage compared to what you see today.
As for the Reagan deficits…I disagree with deficits, but since Reagan, America has been on a pretty good economic role. That’s why a historically low unemployment rate like 5.4% could be used against Bush in the 2004 election. Also, just because you have low taxes, doesn’t mean you will have a big deficit. Just cut spending.
All this talk of high school dropouts not voting, and I get the very real sense that tycoon is one.
Check his grammar. Look at the simple sentence structure. Listen to his banal and inane arguments. And he truly believes that he "will be rich as crap one day."
You only hear that from teenagers who have no idea about the real world, or dropouts who think they're the next big lottery winner.
I'm pretty damn sure you won't be as "rich as crap" one day. Your grammar, simplemindedness and lack of real world knowledge preclude it.
But, keep buying those lottery tickets, tycoon, you may just win it one day.
oh, and you elucidate so much.
"just because you have low taxes, doesn’t mean you will have a big deficit. Just cut spending."
brilliant. why didn't the liberals think of that. well sure, just cut spending. such insight.
and, it's nice to see that you disagree with deficits. at least you've got that going for you. but the next part of that sentence baffles me:
"...but since Reagan, America has been on a pretty good economic role."
first, it's "roll" not "role." and how many presidents have we had since Reagan? 3. Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. Bush one for only one-term and he did nothing to further the economy. He merely further Reaganomics. Clinton, in his two terms, completely and utterly turned around the economy -- taking a then-record deficit and turning it into a surplus. THAT'S fiscal responsibility, son. NOT this bullshit tax-cutting, social services cutting, relief to the rich crap that's been going on with Bush II. If you "disagree with deficits" as you say, the only way out is another Clinton. Fiscal responsibility. Another Bush and this economy will collaspe like none before it.
The more and more I read of your banalities, the more and more I am convinced you are either no older than 21, or hamstrung with an IQ of 21.
Either way, watch more Fox News, tycoon.
They will make you more smarter.
PS. Don't forget your lottery ticket.
I admit that i have rushed my posts, but this is the ineternet. it is fairly causual. as for being rich as crap. the fact is, most people can become millionares if they jsut live intelligently. i plan on doing that, and nothing can stop me from a few simple economic pitfalls:
getting addicted to crack
having kids out of wedlock
renting instead of buying
buying brand new cars
going on extravagent vacations
eating at restraunts
if you play your cards right, you can make great money just by being smart (some might call it cheap). getting rich isnt a secret, but it takes a lot of dicipline.
i am positive, and you are negative...
ps i know i will be rich because everyone on both sides of my family are rich (at least what i would consider rich...upper middle class). maybe you are a racist because you think i can't do it.
regarding clinton's economics...
he compromised a lot of economics. welfare reform (social services cutting as you put it) had a lot to do with his ability to balance the budget. by the way, i am not a clinton basher, just like im not a bush basher. these guys work with what the have. they have the worst job in teh world as far as im concerned. and no matter what they do, half the country will disagree with them.
i have found you completely unreasonable so far, so i probably won't respond again, but let me say this...you are attacking my misuse of a word like role rather than addressing my political ideas. i think that says something about which one of us is simple-minded. get away from the pettiness and i will respond.
how can you call yourself american and be for the government taxing 40% of someones income when the founding fathers fought a revolution over a 1% sales tax?
as for wire taps...
never said i liked them, but BJ had wiretaps too. historical perspective is very important to me, and i think it has yet to be proven that anything bush has done was out of step with anything clinton did.
Jesus was not a liberal. you may say he was a liberal in his day, but if he were alive today, he wouldnt not be a liberal. I really don't want to get in this argument with you, but trust me on this, he just wasn't. just a sample of why he wasnt...
Tithe. it's God's tax on his people. not only is his tax a measly 10%, but it is 10% regardless of wealth. there would be no progressive tax if Jesus was president.
Hey tycoon, even when you are rich the help is still gonna put their balls in your gazpatcho.
Sleep tight.
well i'm chiming in one last time for today. I'm being serious, and please think about what i say. after reading all the posts, i think i have a better understand of all you libs than you do of me.
all this assuming that i am stupid and have been duped into the rich white mans ways show how little you understand many republicans. remember Asians and Hispanics both vote pretty evenly (at least when compared with blacks). only blacks vote heavily democratic. so the idea that non-white have to vote a certain way is not only racist, it just isn't happening.
it isn't because they don't know better. that is dismissive and certainly not in line with the "liberal" tradition of understanding.
p.s. libertarian economics is better than liberal economics because lack of government is what made America an economic super power. it was what separated the US from every other country. again, that doesn't mean there will be no government, just less. so don't ask me how we will pay for the government for a third time.
Nothing can stop you from being "rich"--are you insane? Every single thing in this country can stop you from being rich--& not accidentally, it's that way by design...otherwise everyone would be rich. Skipping the Lemon Splash Chicken at Applebee's isn't going to save you, son. I work in the legal field & make "enough" to live on, but never get "rich." & what's "rich" anyways? A million? Ten million? Jay-Z? How much is enough? Besides, an asteroid might smash into the planet earth next week, or a natural disaster might destroy your home, you might get gored by some animal or you might contract some crazy virus--& if that destroys all you had, if your insurance won't rebuild your home because it doesn't cover "storm surge damamge" or some other fatuous semantic, or if something kills you dead...guess what man...you'll be dead, or crippled, or homeless, or just shit out of luck...then & only then will you come face to face with your decisions, then & only then will you realize that you cannot be a human alone & that bags & bags of money aren't gonna save you from a single goddamned thing. But hey, at least you'll have a little something extra to pay the bone-hand ferryman as he ushers you across the river Styx...you know, tip him enough, he might even let you sit up front, or paddle a little...
& if you can't appreciate how tenous the human condition is, then you really are in for some interesting life-lessons...whether or not your girlffriend is black. Wow.
now that is some funny shit H...
I swear, I step out to collect my welfare, kill some babies and sing "Kumbaya" with my moonbat, tinfoil hat comrades and the whole place goes nuts.
don't make me get my NSA agent, Tommy in here to cool this whole room out...
or dip my balls in all of your various soups, beverages, and/or stews...
how can you call yourself american and be for the government taxing 40% of someones income when the founding fathers fought a revolution over a 1% sales tax?
Media, media, media.
I was a tax accountant for a number of years. I can tell you that this 40% is a myth. There is one class of people that COULD pay the 40% federal tax (actually a bit lower in the Cinton years and much lower now). If you did not own your own home and hit the lottery very late in the year, you will vet fucked by the government. Of course, will that stop you from TAKING the millions? Of course not. I completed hundreds of tax returns. Some for people on welfare with Earned Income Tax Credits and some for multimillionaires. I can tell you, that I have NEVER seen anyone pay 40% tax. I have never seen anyone pay 30% tax. The only way that this woulsd happen is if you top out the income brackaet and have NO DEDUCTIONS. Of course, the rich always have deductions (mortgages, business expense, Sch D loss). Add to that, the legal (although barely) tax shelters and you will be hard pressed to find anyone paying that much tax. This is a number that the conservatives throw around to TRY to make the middle class and lower class feel sorry for the rich. "Poor rich people, overtaxed by the government".
Media, you can believe it, but it is a lie.
Now if you want to get to that 40% by including SS. MEdi, and state taxes, then we ALL pay that much and in fact, SS capps out. The poor and middle class pay a larger percent of their income to the SS than that rich.
Know your facts. Don't just spew the old lies...
BIll
Follow up:
Most people pay around 15% federal tax once it all washes out. That is for those with $15,000 income and those with $1,500,000 income.
Those are the facts, without any spin. Just truth.
Bill
did i say the rich pay too much and poor people pay too little? if i did i am sorry, but i didn't mean too. in my opinion, both rich and poor people pay too much to Big Brother. I AM a poor person (at least in terms of income) and i think i pay way too much. i know that no one pays 40% in income tax, and i am sorry if i said that or implied that.
the 40% number only works when you factor in all taxes (federal, state and local). and even then, i admit it only applies to the people at the top. 10% is too much in my opinion. i pay 20% after ss, sales tax, and all that crap.
ok that was really the last time i post today.
Media,
With a 10% tax, you will have no money for defense & to help people that need it. I'm not talking about shutting down welfare abusers or fraud. With 10% tax, you would have no public schools, you would have unsafe roads, etc... We would be a third world country. The only way to have these things done would be for the states to pick up the shortfall. How wold they do that? They would all raise their taxes and you would not pay the same amount, but to the state and not the federal government.
Bush has spent 30 billion on Iraq & Afghanistan. Where would that money come from if there was a 10% tax?
I'm all for getting rid of "bridges to nowhere", but although those examples are frustrating, they do not represent the actual NEEDED cost to run this country and not have babies starving and people living like this was a poor third world country.
Frankly, you sound more like a Libertarian. They have some good points, but you seem to be picking up the Libertarian econimocs side without endorsing the Libertarian social side. Decriminalize all crimes that don't specifically harm anyone else. Crimes of self destruction would not be crimes. No more drug possession crimes, etc. THAT is the part that I supported in the Libertarians and why I would vote for them if the ever actiually had a chance. Libertarian Candidate for President Harry Brown (I think that was his name) PRIOMISED that his first act as president would be to pardon ALL NON-VIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS in the US).
Let's consider the 10% tax scenario. 150,000,000 working people earning $35,000 a year. That is $5.25 Trillion. Ten percent of that is $525 Billion. Assume that there are no deductions allowed for home interest, etc. No one buys houses becuse there is no reason to. Housing market fails and banks now own many houses. I'm assuming that the 10% cannot include the 8.65% in SS/Medicare, so those are gone too. Some of my numbers are almost certainly off, but you see where we are going. BAcnkruptcy, starvation, rioting and finally communism. People need to eat and if you cannot afford to eat, communism is a GREAT alternative to starvation.
The fact is that the rich NEED to pay their fair share. And their fair share is more than my fair share. They benefit more from services that the US offers than a poor person does.
Consider this. We are invaded by Communists. They take away all personal property and wealth. The poor may complain, but they have lost nothing tangible. The rich has lost all wealth. They PAY for the protection of their wealth through taxes.
If we were invaded by Communists (I know that this is 2006, but I'm making a point here), the Rich would take their money and get the hell out of here with their money. They would not stick around. They stay here as long as the money is being protected. This is the same everywhere.
Look at Iraq. The middle class and rich are leaving in DROVES because their money is not safe. It is the poor that stay behind.
Media, you don't seem like a bad guy, but your arguments are a bit confusing to me. A few I agree with, but many seem like they are gleaned from watching Fox news and repeating what they told you is the truth. It is just the same odd arguments without basis in actual reality that have me stumped.
All best,
BIll
Also,
I'm aware that in my numbers, I did not account for corporate taxes. The numbers would be huigher, but as most business in the country are small business, they would normally be taxed at the individual rate. What should the GOP do with the big companies? Double or triple their tax? They will only pay out more dividendes to the rich that then will only pay 10% tax on it, so raising their tax rate would have no effect.
BIll
A simplified view...
Rich Democrats vote Democrat because they remember what it was like to be poor (The Larry King Types), or know that it is their duty as the rich to help them (the Kennedy Type).
Poor Republicans vote Republican because they THINK the Democrats are the party of the gays and blacks. They vote Republican because they were shamed into voting that way by the Republicans who play that card either covertly or Jesse Helms style. The fact is that the poor voting Republican is odd, as the Republican party cuts their needed services (like after school programs to help them LEARN and GROW), while giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy, who don't need the extra money to survive. Only to buy more golden towers....
Bill
tycoon:
how am i a racist by thinking you won't get rich.
maybe you're a racist for bringing up race when it wasn't warranted.
i know nothing about you but your stilted grammar, misspellings and strange doublespeak. by that i infer no race. all races can be guilty of that.
and if you are one particular race, why are you assuming i am a different one from you?
THAT, young man, is racism.
you guys are being duped. this kid is no older than 21. at best.
he KNOWS he's going to become rich because everyone in his family is rich.
shit, i know i'm going die because everyone who ever lived died.
or, how's this one: i know i'm talking to a racist because he/she brings up race when no mention of it was made or even implied.
these thoughts and ideas and dreams are nothing more than the barely intelligible mumblings of an adolescent struggling to prove he's/she's smart enough to hang with real, educated adults.
sorry, punky brewster, but you're failing miserably.
well there are 100 different things i could comment on. i will limit myself to 5.
1. i don't like or watch FOX NEWS...or any TV media for that matter. in fact, i would venture to say i watch more liberal media than any of you watch conservative media.
2. About peace between hezbollah and lebanon...that was obviously a typo..thanks for pointing it out.
3. the subtitle on my blog is a joke. do you really think i believe that?
4. social darwinism...i know it is hard for libs to understand, but just because the government isn't involved in something, doesn't mean it won't get done. we rely on the private sector for our three most basic needs: food, clothes, and shelter. (i guess water should be up there, but that is more complicated and the provider varies from state to state and city to city.) point is, no one is worried about getting a hold of any of these. in fact, we have TOO MUCH food in this country. there are more obese people than people going hungry.
my point is that i don't think taking away any services will result in massive death among poor people. i think most people will adjust their spending accordingly and be able to take care of themselves just as well. NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD STARVE TO DEATH WITHOUT FOOD STAMPS. it is just a fact.
5. regarding me being rich because everyone in my family is rich...let me rephrase. everyone that doesnt make insanely retarded mistakes in my family is what i would call middle to upper middle class. i would consider that rich, and that is where i will be.
I'm bad on the internet. especially if you dont know me. half of what i'm saying is a joke. i don't know why i do it...it is just my nature.
this all comes down to one major belief. the right of the individual to work for his or herself trumps the right of someone else to collect welfare. you might disagree with that, but it is not double speak, racist, or greedy.
p.s. ok uno mas.
6. regarding how to pay for a government under my system. if you look at a copy of the federal budget and remove all discretionary spending, you could easily run the fed government on 5-10% sales tax. so much of what the federal government does i just crap. if all discretionary spending was handed off to the states, the states would have to raise taxes, no doubt about it. however, the people of that state would have a greater control over what programs existed and how they worked. it would lead to less wasteful spending. it doesnt mean it would be eliminated, but it would be better. some say that shifting the costs from the feds to the states is just shuffling around responsibility. i can't imagine giving social security to the states, and not seeing vast improvents in teh choices avalible to individuals.
"my point is that i don't think taking away any services will result in massive death among poor people. i think most people will adjust their spending accordingly and be able to take care of themselves just as well. NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD STARVE TO DEATH WITHOUT FOOD STAMPS. it is just a fact."
Am I taking crazypills or didn't I just tell you...I live in this country & I lived in this country 21 years ago when my Ma got cancer--which, I hope you'll allow, wasn't her fault. We would've starved without foodstamps (or had to steal or beg). I told you, we got $201 a month in Welfare funds...rent was $200. $1 won't feed a family of 3 for a month...THAT is just fact, Jack. It can't be explained to you any more clearly than that. We were on welfare for 2 unimaginably difficult years (18 months of which my Mom had cancer fro--meaning it took her 6 WHOLE months to get back on her feet & OFF every Gov't program, even after surviving her life-threatening disease)& were it not for my large extended family, churches, & the repeated kindness of strangers ON TOP OF EVERY GOV'T PROGRAM we benefitted from--we wouldn't have made it without resorting to crime to get our BASIC NEEDS. So please, do you self & everyone here a favor, concede this point...because you are 100% wrong &, as I said, if you never lived it, you're just imagining how it is...but please don't insult me, or patronize WHAT I HAVE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES & LIVED THROUGH & KNOW with your silly little throries about what it must be like. Adjust our spending? A just it to what? 1/2 of a 30th of a dollar per day--so we can save something for the future? I invite you to try to live, clothe, feed & house yourself & 2 children with $1 per month...you'd find out real quick how helpfull FOOD STAMPS can be.
& what kind of "crime" do you prefer? An annoying one where imaginary money you supposedly made magically disappears from each check & goes to fund all sorts of wacky programs you don't support (& even a few you do)...or someone sticking a gun in your face & saying "Give me your wallet" because he needs to eat? Desperation turns us back into the silly, stupid animals we are...SO, enlighten us, which world do you prefer? Because hungry people will eat--either with your help or at your expense. See, they've been given a choice "fight for your own survival or die" & they chose fight. Then again, you probably have to spend some time near that razor's edge, some time in the vacinity of that kind of situation, to understand just how far you'd be willing to go--now wouldn't you. So try it. Hell, don't even include to kids--try to live YOURSELF on $1 a month without taking a single handout--not to learn any big, important life liberal lesson, just to see if you fucking can. Then come back. Then, tell me about how adjusting your spending habits helped you turn $1 a month into the fucking Taj Mahal.
i'm trying my hardest to be patient with you, but i know for a fact that you would not have starved to death without government help. For most of it's history, America had no social services, yet you would be hard pressed to find any stories of starvation. i know what it is like to go hungry. i even know what it is like to actually lose weight because there isn't enough money for food. however, had my situation gotten worse, i would not have had to rely on food stamps. there are friends, family, etc. the only reason I went hungry in the first place was because I didn’t want to ask for help. Granted, i only had to worry about myself and it was only for two months, but i think it still holds.
frankly, i feel uncomfortable debating this and ironically, ann coulter just wrote a book about situations like this. this is what she calls the liberal infallibility. say what you like about her, but this particular argument of hers is true. for liberals, if all else fails, find someone with a sad story and people won't want to argue against it. if they do, they are easily labeled heartless and greedy. i don't even like ann coulter, but she was right on this one. (and no I didn’t read her book and I haven’t read any of her books)
let me get this straight right now. i am not for people starving to death. if you people really think that i favor starvation then i don't know what to tell you. what i want is a situation where people are not coerced into giving money to people for nothing. for every situation that you described regarding your mothers cancer, there is a joe lazy that is uninterested in working for a living. in fact, most the people that i know that have collected welfare took advantage of the system. on the other hand, most of the people that i know that deserved welfare, didn't collect on any.
every single person i know would be willing to take in kids of a family whose mother was under going cancer treatment. in fact, i would say that it is that type of human connection that brings us closer together. now that we have big brother to take care of us, we don't have to depend on one another in a personal way, and that is bad for society.
and to answer your question. if someone has time to rob me, they have time to work. get a fucking job. that is my answer. because unless you are completely disabled (as your mother was) there is no excuse for not being able to provide for your family. how do you think illegals come to the US and get by? you would think that with all that racism, oppression, and unfairness that they could barely have enough to feed themselves...OH THATS RIGHT. THEY BRING THEIR WHOLE F'ING FAMILIES HERE WITH THEM OR SEND BACK BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR TO THEIR FAMILIES IN MEXICO. how do they do that? they work their asses off. personally, i am 100% in favor of illegal immigration because it is a testament to the fairness and opportunity that this country still provides. i have never seen a homeless illegal. they work too hard to be homeless. living in the southwest i have actually known a few illegals, and none of them make excuses.
I guess the difference here has to do with how we view people. On one hand, I think people will give money to the poor and charity whether or not the government tells them to. The plus side of this is that a private charity has volunteers. The government has employees making $100,000 a year to write checks to poor people. On the other hand, we have people like you who think that people will make the wrong decisions and that only YOU know what is right to do with other peoples money. It is a legitimate debate I guess, but I will never think it is ok to take someone’s money away without asking.
"the right of the individual to work for his or herself trumps the right of someone else to collect welfare."
No. These rights co-exist. Those working now may need welfare and those on welfare will be working, usually in about 2 years or so according to statistics. It's called a safety net and we all need one. The myth of a class of welfare parasites is based in racism. Most welfare recipients are short term and white. The real economic and social parasites are the wealthy who live off our labor and contribute noting but their anti-human ideology.
Media,
I'll try to end this discussion (my part anyway).
People DID starve before we had social programs, as they do in other Christian contries that have no way to deal with people that cannot support themselves.
Removing the programs like foodstamps would make people die!
Also, people do give to charity, but probably half of the charity giving is for the tax write-off. Don't believe me? How many people donate money and do NOT ask for a receipt? They clearly do it knowing that they will get a portion of it back. Your idea of removing the tax incentive would remove the incentive and cripple most charities. To the point that they would not have the ability to help nearly as many people as they do today.
Frankly, every idea that you have (except relaxed immigration, which I support), is 100% wrong ang will result in crippling the country and ruining everything that has been gained. I'm not talking about gained as in Demopcrats gained. I'm talking about advancement of human beings and our ability to feed, clothe and DEFEND ourselves.
Your ideas are by far the most wrong and damaging that I have heard, in that they are iuninformed and wrong.
Should you ever be elected president, I'll move to a nice country like the slums of India. Life for the poor would be better there.
Oh and you can argue the point with H, about his Mom's cancer. Just put together a decent argument without vague and wrong assertations like that someone would have helped out. You don't know that. Because YOU have a large family that would take you in, does not mean that EVERYONE has this. Hence, the need for the government to do it's job and PROVIDE FOR IT'S PEOPLE.
Finished.
Bill
Okay--I'm just about done with this hump. I told you everyone I knew & even lots of people I didn't know helped us out--& we STILL barely made it. I know, because I lived it. Wow, you lived 2 whole pig-headed months before admitting you needed help--in which case you went to whoever & they helped. Must've been rough.
Also, I think it's totally rad that knowing a few illegals, dating a black woman, & pining wistfully about the people you know that've abused welfare affords to you the ability to comfortably generalize & further extrapolate the 1 & only logical outcome to any situation. I guess if all else fails, you should simply tell everyone you KNOW A GUY with a sad story, therefore they shouldn't bother arguing with you.
Speaking of...I don't remember telling you or anyone that my story was sad...that's because I never did, nor have I bemoaned it in any way. I wouldn't. Because it wasn't. I can understand how you'd think that--because you read it, you thought it was "sad," & you're never wrong, so hence he muist be telling me a sad story. Again, had you ever lived it, you'd know what I mean...& those 2 precious months when you ran out of ramen noodles don't count. It was a powerful teacher. It taught me quiet a bit about humanity, about the fragile nature of life itself. "Someone would've helped out." Who? You? Clearly not. Remember, your fiscal responsibility won't allow you to get Chicken Dunkers from TGIFridays--so how are you gonna justify giving a few bucks willingly to some poor sap who clearly makes poor decisions, because, c'mon, how else would they end up in this situation...the human animal is an inherently selfish one, one that will look after his own self-presevation (in your case, getting richer than god) in almost every situation. So spare me the "someone will help out" argument when you walk past homeless people every day without paying them so much as a glance, much less a few bucks they NEED--for food, or booze or drugs, these are things that THEY HAVE DECIDED THEY NEED. & who better to decide what they need than THEM--isn't that YOUR plank? Oh, wait, let me guess...you KNEW a homeless guy once, & he made $100 a day begging, right? Sounds like a pretty good job...
Would we have STARVED to death--literally starved to death? Doubtful in my case, because I have a large family. If someone showed up on our doorstep & found us looking like deathcamp survivors, someone would've done something, that's true enough. But not everyone has a large family or a church that would come by to check on them. & why must it be starvation? Simple malnutrition (of which there would've been plenty with food stamps) destroys the body's ability to heal itself, destroys the body's ability to effeciently process what food it gets & digestion distends & begins to cannabalize itself--& I guess something as brutal a stiff breeze (medically speaking) could've come along & killed us then. Did we starve--no. Did walking pnemonia kill us when it was easily treatable?...a semantic shell-game to be sure, but the end result is we're dead, so there you go.
But you're right--we really were living high on the hog during those 2 glorious years. Boy, we went to the grocery store & SNICKERED at all those stupid self-starters who were ignorant enough to buy their own food with their own stupid money! Ha! Yeah, we lolled around in food-topia, using t-bones as coasters for our 2 liter bottles of Dr. Pepper & we let mountains of lunchmeat rot in the sun...yeah, that's exactly how it was. It wasn't, I repeat, wasn't a 10 year old kid walking to & from the store, carrying groceries; it wasn't a 10 year old kid who was doing his best to run a household, feed himself & his younger brother as his Mom fought for her life in the next room of a broken down trailer with holes in the floor, which, when we moved in (because it was the only place we could afford making $201 a month) the place didn't reek of cat-piss, & didn't provide shelter for a family of skunks & about a million stray cats. It didn't freeze every winter & the 10 year old kid never stole a christmas tree just so they'd have one...you are ABOSLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING ALWAYS, THE WAY YOU IMAGINE IT IS EXACTLY THE WAY IT WAS & THE ONLY WAY IT OCULD EVER BE...
Your problem is that you don't have the good sense to BE SUSPICIOUS OF EVERYTHING YOU THINK...had you lived abit more, had you a few more difficult life lessons under your belt, maybe you'd understand that any belief system is a ramshackle conglomeration of best guess, most of which remain untested for the balance of your days...your big, beautiful, glorious, god-fearin' & rich-ass days...
Go back to your perfect life. Leave us liberal sinners to go back to our vomit & lap it like the dogs we obviously are. Make damn sure you insulate yourself from anyone like us in your gold-plated space station...then pray to whatever god you hold sacred that you never stumble, never meet with some cruel fate, or some terrible sickness, or some natural disaster...because in the world you envision & work to build...you stumble, you die. & you'd desevre it...because NO ONE ends up down there without making some "poor choices" (or am I misquoting?)
seriously, folks.
you're being duped.
democrat nailed it. this tycoon is nothing but a mere pup. he's a boy.
14, maybe 15.
upper, middle class punk spending daddy's money and with no real future.
let him be. let him wallow.
anymore replies, and he wins.
and h., we all know where you're coming from, and we all KNOW the stark truth of the matter: you stumble in this country, just once, and you fucking DIE!
and the stumbled doesn't necessarily need to be yours. could be your CEO's. your president's. hell, even your doctor's.
stumble, then die.
welcome to the new reality.
tycoon, frankly, you are an ass...
Post a Comment
<< Home