Asks Glenn Beck, a Mormon, speaking to Evangelical Christians, reported in the NYT.
During his special program, Mr. Beck took questions from mostly evangelical Christian listeners, colorfully debunking misperceptions about Mormonism. The “magic underwear” was compared to a skullcap, and Mr. Beck insisted that polygamy was seen as a “perversion” in the modern church.
“It’s not weird to be a Mormon,” he assured his listeners at the end of the program, “and it’s not weird to be president if you’re Mormon.”
It's fascinating — isn't it? — how little anti-Mormon material has been spread about in this election. The only notable person who seems to be going there is
Andrew Sullivan:
Andrew Sullivan recently posted YouTube footage of LDS temple ceremonies in an effort to turn Romney’s Mormonism into an argument against his candidacy.
The video posted by Sullivan was shot surreptitiously inside LDS temples by a former Mormon who wanted to use the publicity connected with the Romney campaign to embarrass the LDS community. (The video creator enhanced the footage with his own monologue — wearing a gorilla mask — and spooky "Carmina Burana" soundtrack.)...
I think most Americans have a deep sensibility respecting religion and don't care to look into details about any given sect that could be exploited to make outsiders see it as bizarre. Sullivan, like Joe Biden, is a Catholic. You could make an equivalent YouTube video holding Catholics up to derision and contempt. That's generally not how we behave in America. I wonder who is more susceptible to this anti-Mormon material: the middle Americans who are aggregated under the "Evangelical Christians" label, who listen to Glenn Beck, or the affluent, educated coastal Americans who read Andrew Sullivan and the New York Times? Whichever, the notable fact is that there has been very little effort to stimulate anti-Mormon sentiment, and that's an excellent thing about America.
पोस्ट्स
६०७ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 607 पैकी 401 – 600 नवीन› नवीनतम»You are saying we should vote for more of that, because the other guys, who do not even plan to CUT spending levels, are outrageously irresponsible.
Obama has cut spending (in Medicare) and the Randian austerity-lover Paul Ryan squealed.
Spending will come down and has to come down, but I don't trust budget busting, defense-spending increase-loving Republicans to do that.
They won't. They'll just decrease revenue with an unecessary upper-bracket tax cut and call it a day.
Empirical objectivity requires me to conclude that. That's all they've done for the last 30 years.
@Ritmo:Empirical objectivity requires me to conclude that....
More horseshit unbacked by numbers that everyone has to have but you. Piss off troll.
And then they'll complain about the debt that results from it.
Well, guess what? When you decrease revenue, debt results.
It's like that memo in 2001, they just didn't seem to get it.
Take it from Clinton, he decreased the debt - something no Republican has done in a generation. They way they did it: "Arithmetic".
Yes, arithmetic works. No point in passing a budget for the benefit of people who disbelieve in arithmetic and believe instead in magic tax cuts.
Piss off troll.
Have you considered getting professional help for your anger problem?
...hyperventilate against modest efforts to rein in spending?
Once again, out of both sides of your mouth.
One would say the best example of "talking out of both sides of one's mouth" is to make unnecessary cuts to employment in the name of budgeting when you ask for $200 billion extra that the Pentagon doesn't want and even more from the highest income bracket available.
All the while hyperventilating about Obama's $700 billion cut in Medicare.
Utterly dishonest. No one buys it anymore.
--Does anyone actually think that Mitt Romney WORKED FOUR HUNDRED TIMES HARDER than the average American last year?--
He's in campaign mode, of course he has.
23 million are out of work, part of the economy is part time, why use 400?
At this point 4x harder is valid.
Asking someone to read is abusive but an unwarranted outburst of "piss off troll" is not?
This is a good example of the sort of unbalanced approach that Republicans have embraced when it comes to society and the economy.
Mamie
That's an insight. Explains the ego and the inability to empathize.
--Well, guess what? When you decrease revenue, debt results.--
Ummm, maybe with the choices you've made. That's a blanket statement. Other might not have made the same choices so when their revenue decreased, there might have not been fun money.
There are people who are debt free.
Tell me what I'm not empathizing with, wyo sis?
But as I can tell (even if Gabriel can't), you're just being silly or playing a game here.
Face-palm.
Fully 50% of the posts in this thread are from the ranting lunatic Ritmo and the proudly ignorant piglet Inga.
Methinks the mental desperation of impending electoral assfucking is starting to worry the resident trolls.
There is something incredibly disgusting and disturbing about you President Asshat. Actually creepy as hell.
dspinelli said...
Has anyone called the hospitals or morgue regarding Crack?
Crack can be found at his blog.
He has some interesting stuff there about Mormonism and Romney. For example, why is Romney so fond of W. Cleon Skousen? According to Crack's blog, Skousen was "a historian accused of racist revisionism, and a right-wing conspiracy theorist. He contended that the Founding Fathers were direct descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel, claimed that a global cabal of bankers controlled the world from behind the scenes, and wrote a book that referred to the 'blessings of slavery.'"
If that was one of Romney's mentors, isn't that as relevant to the vetting of Romney as some of the stuff you all dig up about Obama's past mentors?
Awww, are your feelings hurt?
Why don't you make fun of someone who is in fear for their families safety again, perhaps that will make you feel better.
Oink on, you disgusting excuse for a human being.
Actually, President Asshat, I'm not anguished at all about watching the "impending electoral assfucking" that you'll endure.
I suppose this is an example of the sort of abusive language that Gabriel Hannah would find deplorable if it were to emanate from the mouths of anyone other than a member of Team Red.
But asking someone to read is torture. Just torture, I tells ya! Horribly unfair!
Why would my feelings be hurt? Even that is a creepy statement. Only one person I have run across online lately has been his weird.
I made fun of no one's predicament, I did make fun of his irrational fears and rumor mongering regarding blacks rioting if Obama loses. I also offered help to that individual to get out of his situation, what did you do weirdo?
I'm just observing Ritmo.
I have a brother-in-law who acts like you who's a diagnosed narcissistic personality. He's scary and his children are every kind of messed up. I recognize the symptoms.
Ritmo, this is a person that commented on a certain website we both used to comment on. Someone who is seriously mentally unbalanced.
I am not concerned with what Gabriel, or any other poster here feels about my civility or lack thereof. I believe wholeheartedly in what our hostess has tagged "civility bullshit" and I make no effort to be civil to the hopelessly ignorant and vile.
Nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.
Yup, certifiable. they are seriously losing it.
I don't mean Ritmo.
Yes Inga, Ritmo is certifiable, but I bet he doesn't get help for it. They don't until they're forced to and by then they have a trail of victims.
I have a brother-in-law who acts like you who's a diagnosed narcissistic personality. He's scary and his children are every kind of messed up. I recognize the symptoms.
I'd recognize them, too. I don't think you can diagnose them from the playful tagline of an online persona.
Anyway, passionately arguing in favor of better, fairer treatment for the disadvantaged is not one of them. Neither is making fun of people who not only don't, but make fun of you for doing so.
I'm not sure how genetic that problem you mention is, but it's probably socially contagious. Best not to hang around others who advocate as much disinterest as some of the people here. The way they worship the privileged while looking down on those who aren't "special" in the way Mitt Romney must somehow be sounds either awfully narcissistic or at the very least, a way to enable it.
Garsh - the question was:
"Does Mitt Romney’s Mormonism make him too scary or weird to be elected to president of the United States?"
And some 430 comments later at last we have the definitive answer: Nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.
I.LOVE.THIS.BLOG
wyo, you're certainly certifiably full of it.
Again, with whom am I incapable of empathizing? And remember, empathy is a two-way street.
If you disagree, you just might be...
You guessed it: A narcissist.
Only one candidate in this race completely embodies that while the other seems to be the mirror opposite. Perhaps your sister is attracted to the same sorts that you are in Romney. Or if the brother-in-law is your husband's brother...
Armchair psychiatry is about as ridiculous as armchair punditry.
And that was one of the more sane things that President Asshat has said to me, LMAO!
Well, Ritmo,
In fairness I have more than that tagline to go by.
"Armchair psychiatry is about as ridiculous as armchair punditry."
Hmmm, My brother-in-law would never display that much self-knowledge.
What else do you have? My unwillingness to display empathy to those who either lack it or are abusive to me?
That's not narcissism. THat's refusing to be mistreated.
But conservatives are notorious followers and worshipers of authority so it's understandable if you'd think that being nice to someone is a one-way, hierarchical street.
I, in case it needed to be said, don't.
Please fine a psychiatrist who disagrees with that.
BTW, their profession is looking to remove that from the DSM. Probably not a good thing - even if it might have the added benefit of keeping those who disbelieve geophysics, embryology, macroeconomics and evolution from opining on psychiatric matters.
Oh, I see.
Neither did you. Sorry.
Wyo Sis, Ritmo is a good guy deep down, deeeeeep down, JK, don't get mad Ritmo.
Hmmm, My brother-in-law would never display that much self-knowledge.
Settle down, grasshopper. It was an opinion. Yes, my own opinion. But still, just an opinion.
President-Mom-Jeans - I meant no disrespect to you posterally so do not think I am calling you out.
I was trying to either snip or reel in the tangent and you provided a nice cue.
Not mad.
I just read this on the Powerline site.
"A Columbus Dispatch poll gives Romney a 55 to 44 lead among Catholics in Ohio. But according to John Fund, the Romney campaign is concerned that, at the last minute when it’s too late to call them out, Obama supporters will launch a last-minute underground attack designed to drive a wedge between potential Republican Catholic voters and their candidate over the Mormon issue. Indeed, Fund points to anecdotal evidence of such an underground attack in Ohio"
"See? THIS. This is the problem with Republican economic arguments. They think that every extra dollar of income represents an extra dollar of work. Does anyone actually think that Mitt Romney WORKED FOUR HUNDRED TIMES HARDER than the average American last year? Do you actually think the "work" of watching his investments represented a factor of 400 extra units of work?
Who believes this stuff?"
No one I know.
At what point did I make a claim of a 1 to 1 ratio? I specifically said it wasn't a perfect correlation, meaning that it was true statistically in general terms that people who make a great deal more money work far harder than people who don't.
So you construct another straw-man and claim anyone who believes in it is an idiot.
I asked if you thought that, in general terms, it took the same work to provide basic needs as it took to make a million bucks. It seems an obvious truism that *most* people who make it big work very hard. They work very hard to have more than their basic needs met. They don't work very hard to have someone take away what they earn.
This is not a difficult concept. I'm taking university classes. I have two As on the first two tests in one class. I have one more test. I can get an A with similar effort. Or I can work significantly harder and get an A+ since they have those and I could use the extra few points for my GPA. So I have to figure... is it possible to get a high enough score to pull my grade up to an A+ over all? If I can't, there is no point in putting the extra effort into that last test. I have to guess if the instructor is going to curve the other tests so that my previous As are higher. I might work harder on the last test just in case it pays off, but not if I'm sure it won't do any good.
People make determinations on effort in a cost/benefit way All The Time.
Then there are the C students who are simply happy and content with C's. They do C work and they're pretty good at knowing just exactly how much work it takes to make that C.
No A student would do A work if they knew they were going to get a C, no matter how perfectly adequate for human life and happiness a C happens to be.
You have to be totally blind to human nature to think that people work beyond the point they see benefits from it.
You know what I'd like to see...
Ritmo taking on Den Beste.
Talk about ripping of new assholes, Ritmo would be sore for the rest of his angry life.
Only if Ritmo has deeply-held views on anime and fanservice.
You have to be totally blind to human nature to think that people work beyond the point they see benefits from it.
Good. We don't need Mitt Romney working on finding new ways for companies to fail or go bankrupt faster, for their workers to be outsourced quicker, for speculation and exotic financial "instruments" to replace solid investment practices at a greater pace, or for him to use all that as a way to influence his entry into national elections or state elections, the latter of which (in Massachusetts) resulted in the third highest rate of job loss in the country under his tenure.
Let Romney work less. Detroit will have plenty of customers buying their Cadillacs without him and his fancy elevators, as he writes columns first urging their company to go bankrupt, and then lying about the manufacturing that exists in Detroit.
Yes, he gets a C in ideas for managing the nation's economy. But his determination is admirable! He wants an A for it.
I give him an A in leaving his stubby hands off of the levers of power. His friends already have enough representation in the form of their lobbies, his favorite off-shored tax breaks already have enough loopholes, and the only thing that he needs now is a ticket to the places that will appreciate him for it: The Cayman Islands or a Chinese sweatshop.
Leave that liar far away from the levers of power here.
Seriously? That's what you take away from that?
I point out quite rightly that "They think that every extra dollar of income represents an extra dollar of work." refers to no actual living human, and you change the subject?
This is hilarious!
Republican agrees that Romney is boneheaded for dissing Chris Christie's appreciation for Obama's help during hurricane.
Look at the narcissism! Doesn't Romney realize that Chris Christie needs to work with the president (whoever it is) on behalf of the needs of the people of his state? I love the way Chris Christie doesn't even shy away from telling Romney off!
What a crazy, self-centered prick! People dying and needing help in the middle of a disaster, and all Romney could think of is how Christie's reaction and appreciation for the help Obama gave him was politically inexpedient! What an idiotic asshole!
Synova, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at anymore. Can you kindly summarize it in a sentence or two?
Anyways, I was distracted by how incredibly idiotically and selfishly Romney complained about Chris Christie for appreciating the help that the federal government gave his state. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about this man? Thousands, millions, struggling with their lives due to a natural disaster, and all Romney can think about is himself and his campaign... and he goes on to release a memo letting that be known PUBLICLY!
This man is something else. His bone-headed economic musings are only icing on the cake.
Synova
Ritmo is just like my BIL no reasoning, no possibility of acknowledging a point, no effort to understand. Just pontificating and changing the subject and anger. There is no there there.
I saw that Ritmo, that was pretty low of them, yet Christie came out and still said he was voting for Romney.
wyo, you're the one who's changing the subject with your fixation on your family issues. I told Synova I don't understand what she's going on about. I didn't say I refused to see it. As for the issues I pay attention to, yes, it matters to me that Romney is so narcissistic that the people of the state of New Jersey matter less to him than how Governor Christie affects his own propaganda. Doesn't it to you?
If not, then maybe YOU'RE the narcissist, and your family is just attracted to traits they see around them.
I can discuss more than one issue at one time. No, that's not indicative of narcissism, either. Try again.
What is wrong with Republicans that they are so uncreative as to project onto others the worst of their own, endemic shortcomings?
So strange.
Christie came out and still said he was voting for Romney.
Yeah, he said that's what he was going to do, but he did it in that East Coast, in your face, and it's none of your business anyway way. It was about as good a way of telling Romney to take a hike as any.
But careful, according to wyo, we are narcissistic for being concerned with these sorts of things. And two days before an election! If we don't fixate on every abstruse, incomprehensible contrarian point of Republinomics, then we are mean!!!!
Synova has her chance. I just don't even understand what she's trying to say anymore. Excuse me for having a limited (if not as short as some on here) attention span. Geez.
It's strange times, Ritmo. Up is down and down is up and they go round and round.....
Obama's father, unlike Romney's father was a bigamist, so the whole multiple wives thing would be awkward, not that it stopped some lefties.
Nice mirror, Ritmo.
Biden: It matters where you grow the economy.
It's not just about shareholders, but stakeholders.
The Hunger Games writ large.
The depths of stupidity is using Joe Biden to support your economic argument.
It's like trying to nail down slime mold.
Not easy, and not worth the effort.
Not as stupid as being a bootlicker who can't make his own argument for anything.
You'll just follow Romney no matter what. You can't even tell me what he stands for or what his argument even is... because it doesn't matter to you.
BTW, "depths" is plural. The verb should be "are", not "is".
Thanks for the chuckle, Cartman. It's been too long.
Republican agrees that Romney is boneheaded for dissing Chris Christie's appreciation for Obama's help during hurricane.
This is a dis?
“He’s giving it all of his heart and his passion to help the people of his state,” Mr. Romney said. “They’re in a hard way, and we appreciate his hard work. Thank you, governor.”
Paraphrased as honest as I know how.
R: A guy with a million bucks only needs a little bit of that to eat and take care of basic expenses.
S: People with a million bucks work way harder than most. They won't work harder if they don't get to have more.
R: Stupid Republicans believe that every extra dollar of income equals one dollar of work. (Lots of Caps to emphasize how important this point is.)
S: No one says that or thinks that.
Reiterate logical explanation with real world examples of how people decide how much effort to put forth in any given situation.
R: Squirrel! Also, Synova is speaking incomprehensible nonsense.
So... like... whatever.
The mirror is really getting a workout 2nite.
Republicans attempt to pander to the African American vote by reminding them that they freed them from slavery 150 years ago.
Wow. Way to keep up, guys. LOL!
Those Republicans... Really ahead of the times. Too funny.
OK, so there it was. YOu forgot how to follow your own argument.
No one says that or thinks that.
So if you don't believe that every dollar above, let's say, $250k in income represents that much more work, then it's fair to say that less of it, proportionately, should be kept. That's just how MATH works out, assuming you're "rewarding" on the basis of labor performed.
Sheesh. What is so hard not to get. It's the very logical conclusion of what you're admitting to, despite the fact that you started from a premise that didn't allow for it. Just accept that you started with the wrong premise.
Let me be the first to say that neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet nor George Soros are doing ten thousand times as much work as me for watching their investments grow. They should be paying a higher rate for that proportionately-less-than-the-difference-they're-making than they do.
And a good number of them agree.
It's soooo not difficult to understand.
$250k in income represents that much more work
Add "what people are willing to pay for" b.w "represents" and "that" and you're much closer to being correct.
It's called the marginal productivity theory of income, and it's been part of mainstream economics for a century.
Add "what people are willing to pay for" b.w "represents" and "that" and you're much closer to being correct.
It's called the marginal productivity theory of income, and it's been part of mainstream economics for a century.
And mainstream politics understands that I, as a voter, am not willing to tax them at that much lower (or even equal) a rate for doing so. They are not pulling a share that represents to them as big a burden as what I am paying represents to me.
Even Adam Smith said...
Aw, fuck it. You're not interested in what Adam Smith said. You've got an ideologically warped and unrealistic agenda to advance. Advance away! Advance!
And free English lessons from a loon who thinks it is shrewd to the use Joe Biden as an authoriteeee!
No, no. Please. Quote Adam Smith any time!
LOLOL A dockworker married to a nurse in parts of Cali could make $250K w/OT.
2 nurses in Chicago, depending on which area worked w/OT could make $250/yr.
Why is $250K the dividing line?
Soros, Buffet & Gates agree?
They don't walk their talk.
Buffet finding his charitable side after talking to Gates, when all they all ever had to do was cut a check to the Treasury all along.
They chose not to, and they choose, like George Lucas, to deny more funds to the Treasury when they have the opportunity to.
Biden's a nice guy. You should leave him alone, Aw Gee. People will think you're too snooty a mainliner to remember your Delaware Valley roots.
Wow, Jeremiah Wright's name disappeared after the first 200 posts.
What potential do either Mormonism or Black Liberation Theology have to affect policy?
The latter is quite plain to us that bother to research the subject. BLT enshrines the concepts of class warfare and collective guilt. (This certainly puts "God damn America" in context.) Policy must not only benefit the favored classes , but injure the nonfavored classes.
To Wright's mentor, white people as a whole are guilty of taking from blacks. Someone who believes this is not the sort of person who will look for win-win situations like Dr. King's table of brotherhood. Class warfare philosophies of all types claim that the favored class(es) CANNOT advance without inflicting harm on other class(es).
Letter from Birmingham Jail rejects the notion of class warfare. MLK thanked the whites who had worked for his cause. That is not something you hear from someone who thinks whites as a whole are guilty of racism.
How long until we get a black President who believes in MLK's dream?
Mormonism worked to reinvent its position on race, no doubt hampered by the fact that the President of the church is held up as a prophet. By definition, a prophet's pronouncements are treated as revelation - canon. There is no logical basis for changing canon, if it is based on the assumption of a perfectly knowledgeable source. But LDS does it anyway (a point we evangelicals bring up when attacking LDS claims to authority).
When Romney was born, LDS was with the mainstream on race. The mainstream changed, and LDS with it. I imagine that the official policy change would not have happened if the general Mormon population hadn't been evolving away from racism.
Mormonism changed, and Black Liberation Theology didn't.
when all they all ever had to do was cut a check to the Treasury all along.
No, outsourcing the government to the highest bidder is for fascists like yourself. Equitably shared sacrifice bearing works when it is made law, not when it is voluntary. Voluntarism is for civil society, not public life. People feel that there is an equitable stake for them in their republic and their nation when they know that their elected officials will put that schedule into law, and not when they feel that those elected officials are being held hostage to a financially powerful private interest, however much you wish to "privatize" his burden and liken it to charity.
I thought your kind didn't believe that government was or should be made into a charity, anyway?
So, because reward to labor doesn't follow a one to one correlation it's right and good for government to fix that by confiscating the extra to enforce proportionality?
I was talking about the laffer curve, or whatever it's called. You won't *have* anything to confiscate, morally or otherwise, if anything deemed "excess" is taxed away.
And of course it's not one-to-one. With my examples of grades moving that A to an A+ would mean nearly doubling effort for that class. In some other situation it would be different. Maybe less extra effort would mean even greater improvement.
If I have what I need, if I can eat and take care of my basic expenses, maybe it would take a 1 effort to 3 result ratio to make it worth it. Everything has opportunity costs. Time taken away from family or other pursuits. Maybe if it's only a 1 effort to 2 result ratio it won't be worth it to me.
Women, in particular, often give up careers entirely to have kids. The cost/benefit ratio is weighed differently by everyone but everyone DOES weigh it.
Pretending that some guy with a million bucks will just go on working because all he needs is food to eat and basic needs met is pure fantasy. He won't.
The only question is at what point will he decide to stay home with kids or retire to a small cabin somewhere to write the Great American Novel.
Income and economic growth is greater under Democrats!
Raise taxes!!!
Ritmo: This is hilarious!
Groupie: I saw that Ritmo.
Anonymously sourced from Politico, flogged on Hardball, pitched to guests with no direct knowledge of anything relevant. YAAAWWWW..wwwn
Poor Ritmo and Inga feeding each other Chrissie Tingle's table scraps. So sad.
So, because reward to labor doesn't follow a one to one correlation it's right and good for government to fix that by confiscating the extra to enforce proportionality?
Yep. Exactly so. Economic opportunity and income mobility is greater under situations where there is greater redistribution, whether through a more progressive tax structure or otherwise.
That is the empiric argument. Come up with as many folksy aphorisms as you like. That's what the data, the evidence shows and you can't refute it.
Adam Smith devoted Part II of Book V of The Wealth of Nations to the analysis of taxation. His four famous "canons of taxation" include:
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.
The first canon is clearly consistent with a flat tax with a reasonable personal exemption. The fourth canon, in modern jargon, prescribes that the tax system minimize "deadweight losses". Progressive taxes involve much higher deadweight costs than flat taxes yielding equal revenues.
If I were Synova, I'd worry that the Danes surpass us in providing the American dream. But I'm sure she has a folksy aphorism for assuring us that this gap doesn't matter. Or that the American dream isn't the American dream anyway. Or that it isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Or that we should eat more herring. Or be less Danish. Something like that.
Read the quote, dude. I linked it, after all.
Aw hell. What is up with the bootstrappers, today? Are they always this lazy?
Here's the quote:
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
Refute THAT.
O Ritmo wrote:
She is not the one denying global warming.
Lesson for Ritmo. THe argument about global warming usually boils down to things that must be done to combat global warmng. THere are some who say no warming has occurred. But there are far more saying that global warming is not caused by mans increased involvement. (i.e. things like the ocean and the sun and volcanic activity are the primary mover of climate) but even if it were, what the lefties are proposing as their modest proposals could never be enacted without bankrupting the world economies, and would not even work to actually combat global warming to any sufficient degree.
My own personal view is, its climate. It was warming in the 90's and seemed to have stopped. There have been other times throughout our history where it's been warmer and colder and those climate movements similarly were beyond our control. We cannot control the heavens, and the proposals you guys offer as solutions are completely and utterly unrealistic and will never pass. And if they did, no country will be able to meet the standards proposed and will bankrupt themselves doing so and will make no dent in climate warming or cooling regardless.
Dude, I read your link.
What I didn't see at that link was a source, which is customary when citing published works.
See how my A.S. quotes are sourced?
I've had thousands (literally) of arguments with Mormons -- back in the usenet days.
And it doesn't matter a whit to this evangelical that Romney is a Mormon. It really didn't matter to me that Obama's Christianity was off in left field either; that's not what's made him a lousy president any more than Mormonism would compromise the qualities Romney brings to the office.
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
So you're saying that Mitt ROmney's 14% tax rate represents his lack of economic ability compared to my 28%+ rate?
I whole-heartedly agree. But I don't think that should let him off the hook.
TAX HIM!!!!
"I wonder who is more susceptible to this anti-Mormon material: the middle Americans who are aggregated under the "Evangelical Christians" label, who listen to Glenn Beck, or the affluent, educated coastal Americans who read Andrew Sullivan and the New York Times?"
Actually, Prof. Althouse, that's a matter that has been settled long ago. Polls consistently demonstrate more antipathy toward Mormon candidates among Democrats than among Republicans
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155273/bias-against-mormon-presidential-candidate-1967.aspx
Oh, and Ritmo...please note that the A.S. quote you've "cited" is completely consistent w/ a flat tax that includes a personal exemption.
I know Adam Smith. Adam Smith is a source of mine. Progressive taxation is not Smithian.
Neither is big government, btw.
Biden is a retard who sat in the Senate for almost 40 years while the country was being steadily bankrupted. Refute that!
[p.s. I even hated Biden when I was a librul Dem. He is an old empty-headed Irish blowhard. I have known quite a few of them in my life. They are easy to pick out in a crowd and most astute people don't really like people like Biden.]
Oh for crying out loud. If you dispute the veracity of the quote, highlight it and ask your browser to drop it into a GOOGLE search. You will find a reference in Wikipedia (which you find authoritative when it comes to national tax rates), Bartleby's, and probably about a few thousand others. From there you can probably get a page number. Stop getting silly with the citation game. I think we can vouch for the evidence we're willing to consider here, Chip.
Maybe you have the wrong link. What I found was a short article saying that inter-generational income mobility is greater in Europe than the US. (But less in England.)
And then the article itself explained that there was no conclusion as to why that was so. Not that it stopped you from making a claim that it was European style redistribution of wealth that did it.
Nah, it reads pretty clearly as an endorsement of a progressive income rate, no matter how you "compose" it.
O Ritmo wrote:
Yes, he gets a C in ideas for managing the nation's economy. But his determination is admirable! He wants an A for it.
That describes Obama's handling to a Tee. Only giving him a C would be overly generous, and would require grading on one serious curve.Actually, Can you even give Obama a grade? Right now he's saying he needs four more years so shouldn't be graded yet. That's an incomplete. Only if a teacher were grading him it would be based on failed midterm, a failed final and not turning in any of the essays. Plus, truant half the time. And a whole lot of dog ate my homework type excuses as to why the work wasn't done or was done so badly.
England is a pretty regressive culture - we probably inherited a lot of their problems in this regard. And without the benefit (yet) of a Charles Dickens to correct it in our national literary tradition.
But Richard Wilkinson's done some good work on this. If I'm not mistaken, this is the TED talk where he shows you that it's not the source of the redistribution that is important, (whether through taxes or whatever), just that it gets done.
So you're saying that Mitt ROmney's 14% tax rate represents his lack of economic ability compared to my 28%+ rate?
Heh. Nice one.
If you really know macroeconomics as much as you say you do, then you're surely familiar w/ the literature on optimal capital taxation--not a field dominated by wingnuts, BTW. There's a general consensus that the deadweight-loss-minimizing tax rate on capital income is...wait for it...zero.
I happen to think that for a variety of reasons it would be better to simply eliminate the corporate tax and tax all income (including capital gains) at the regular (relatively, but not necessarily absolutely flat) income-tax rate.
But the point is that there are economic justifications for not taxing capital income at all...let alone at merely a favorable capital-gains rate.
Most of us support a graduated income tax but want to keep lower rates for cap gains etc because we believe they foster investment and econ growth.
You, on the other hand, are just a resentful prick [like Obama] so you want to level punitive tax rates on those who have more than you.
O Ritmo wrot:
So you're saying that Mitt ROmney's 14% tax rate represents his lack of economic ability compared to my 28%+ rate?
I whole-heartedly agree. But I don't think that should let him off the hook.
TAX HIM!!!!
Steve Jobs earned 1 dollar as a salary, and millions in stock options/perks. How should he be taxed? On stock options that he has yet to sell? IF you did that, wouldn't that destroy the concept of investing in things like stocks or bonds? How about you if you invested in a 401k? Should we tax you every year for that INCOME?
Being able to invest is not simply a rich mans game. You'd be fucking with peoples pensions and retirement vehicles, jackass.
Nah, it reads pretty clearly as an endorsement of a progressive income rate, no matter how you "compose" it.
Try to follow along...
The proportion of income paid under a flat tax w/ a personal exemption = t(I-E)/I, where t represents the tax rate, I represents personal income, and E represents the personal exemption.
Unless I > E, taxes paid are zero. As income increases, the ratio of taxes paid to income increases.
That's a tax that's progressive in its average rate but flat in its marginal rate. It is more economically efficient than a tax code that's progressive in terms of marginal rates.
"Being able to invest is not simply a rich mans game. You'd be fucking with peoples pensions and retirement vehicles, jackass."
Rich people can hire professionals to guard their interests. It's *always* the middle class that gets screwed. Always.
I think it is better to have a lower rate on investment than on income as well. But when carried-interest "earners" like Romney rely on it entirely, then it should be treated (and taxed) like the income it is.
As for the corporate tax rate, yes, we should be competitive with the world, but then, the world also doesn't run the deficits that we do.
The problem with fixating on revenue is, that's fine to do - but the more you want the theory of some optimal "scheme" for revenue that maximizes every economic idea of philosophical optimization, the more you get away from the fact that the same party doing this HAS A CONSISTENTLY WORSE RECORD ON SPENDING:REVENUE.
THEY ALSO obsess with giving money to causes that don't need it:
Defense ($200b more than requested).
Earners above $250k annually.
ANd now...
Medicare (Ryan bitching about Obama cutting $700b over ten years from a program that he'd prefer - at the objection of the AMerican people - to just scrap anyway).
They are just not credible, Chip.
You, on the other hand, are just a resentful prick [like Obama] so you want to level punitive tax rates on those who have more than you.
No, I'm just sick of assholes like you who pretend to care about the national debt going on about what you need to cut and then spending your way into an oblivion. All the while blaming it on the party whose record on increased spending is nowhere near as bad as Reagan's, Bush's, Bush the 2nd's, etc.
It is more economically efficient than a tax code that's progressive in terms of marginal rates.
Yes, I understand that. I also think it would be more politically difficult to implement, as it doesn't read as fairer. Plus, who knows how many ways there are to fuck with and jerry-rig "exemptions". They'd be like the deductions that so vex the Randroids already.
Taxing at the margin is better (easier) in terms of accounting for people's needs and indexing that to the poverty level, but if you want to do it with an exemption that starts on the first $20k of income and then gradually increases as you move up, into a more comfortable range, I could care less. But I do think it allows for just as much (if not more) political trickery if you do it that way.
Plus, Smith's quote is still a defense of progressivity, no matter how you get there.
Ritmo's first comment:
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Wow. You're going through a real posting frenzy. It must be a real challenge to keep up with the amount of redirection and obfuscation you're reduced to these days.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
omg that's funny ohno ohno ohno oooo here comes anoth-hahahahahalaughingfithahahaha ...
Synova wrote:
Rich people can hire professionals to guard their interests. It's *always* the middle class that gets screwed. Always.
Oh I agree. I was just making the point that not everyone gets rich on a salary. In the case of Jobs he was paid in salary less than the poorest person in America. Yet, most poor people aren't billionaires.
So how would Ritmo expect him to be taxed? On his investments? Investments which are sitting in a fund somewhere and not being sold?
Rich people don't need salaries to maintain their fortunes. But it might explain why Ritmo is paying a higher tax rate than say a Romney. If all of Ritmo's money comes from salary and a rich guys money comes from capital gains on investments, then there might be a discrepency.
But what is Ritmo's remedy? To tax investments harder? If that were done, wouldn't that simply make it less likely for people to invest in those vehicles?
And then getting back to the middle class, what is the remedy for them? They would have to pay more taxes on those same investments, because we want to stick it to the rich?
Ritmo's redistribution inevitably hurts the middle class and poor.
And I say this as a middle class person, and not a rich person.
You keep that one thought in your head and don't allow any others in that tight space, Chip.
Now go take a picture of a fucking souffle, or something. Make your self useful. Do a photoshop of a politician that you will never actually talk to.
Go on, now. You can do it.
I direct that latest comment of mine to the fluffball Chip "Ahoy". Not to the Chip S. whose interest in empiric reasoning is something that Ahoy will never know, lest that get in the way of the technicolor dreamworld that he lives in.
O Ritmo wrote:
I think it is better to have a lower rate on investment than on income as well. But when carried-interest "earners" like Romney rely on it entirely, then it should be treated (and taxed) like the income it is.
How would you fix that without screwing over people who are similarly invested but not rich like Romney?
If you are invested in a 401k or IRA you don't get taxed until you sell the investment. Are you going to say you can't hold investments for more than a few years? That you MUST sell off investments?
Like, I bought Apple back when it was 40. Its now 600 bucks or so. Should I be required to sell it because you think someone else should have my money and I've earned too much?
What about the stocks I invested in and lost money on? Maybe you should recoup my losses there? And if you are going to go this route, how are you going to continue pushing the idea of investing? Why would people invest in things if they are going to be penalized for it? That would apply to IRA's, 401ks's etc. Either an investment has a net benefit or you're gonig to put your money in a mattress. But if an investment is punitive, then of course, people will simply move their money elsewhere. IF you make all investing punitive, then people will not invest.
Where do you propose people put their money for their retirement? Non rich people, I should say?
I do think it allows for just as much (if not more) political trickery if you do it that way.
Actually, one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of a flat-rate tax is that it reduces the incentive to lobby for special tax treatment of particular sources of income.
When the top tax rate is 50%, anything you can do to get your income source taxed at, e.g., half the statutory rate is worth twice as much as it is when the top rate is 25%.
jr565, I should have explained better... When we try to stick it to the rich it's the middle class that gets screwed.
I was agreeing with you.
Synova wrote:
jr565, I should have explained better... When we try to stick it to the rich it's the middle class that gets screwed.
I was agreeing with you.
I was actually agreeing with you too. I should instead have used your quote in a reply to Ritmo. You've been spot on in all of this.
And so on for when the top rate is 12.5%... The "argument" never ends. And for a party that is obsessed with ending revenue - no matter how much debt gets in the way of that, that's a problem.
But the reality is that when rates were higher, we had better growth. And the evidence shows that this is a general phenomenon.
Why should I care about how a privileged schemer argues about the best way to buck his obligation? He is a schemer, and that's that. I don't have reason to trust the arguments for how he is best "incentivized". There are people at the top who will always lust for finding as many creative ways to make as much more money as they can, and that is the reality of it. To allow them to argue that completely reinventing the way America collects its taxes will get them to contribute more honorably and equitably, when all their current hand-outs and political favortism/patronage have done is to explode our debt, I don't see a reason to listen.
I prefer to listen to those many decent people in the capitalist class who understand that their country's financing has national implications that are more important than how they individually profit off of it.
They are, by deduction, going to make the more honest (and therefore, likely realistic) argument.
This comment is in reply to a comment made so long ago, the commenter probably won't see it, but:
John Sager wrote: "Marxism is weird because it immamentizes the escutcheon. Mormonism's weirdness is on the other side of death, I think."
Marxism "immanentizes the eschaton" - eschaton from eschatology, last things.
An escutcheon is a shield or emblem bearing a coat of arms.
I suppose that's pedantic and I'm sure you understood the basic meaning of the phrase - just leaped out at me when I saw it.
Judith
O Ritmo has me desperately seeking an updated version of the old Firefox plug-in which would black-hole comment spam.
Where the Communicants line up like 6-year-olds at the altar rail to have a cracker and a sip of grape juice and read in droning unison the entire service from a Book of Common Prayer (as I have most Sundays for 50 years)?
I would be shocked to get grape juice in an Episcopalian service. No way.
Well, Conrad, if that makes you feel better about having nothing to contribute to the discussion, go for it.
For Ritmo:
Why Does Romney pay so little in taxes?
The Romneys paid tax because they hold stocks and securities yielding dividends and interest, and because they sold assets generating capital gains. They didn't have to do so. The simple strategy of the super-rich is to buy and hold, and to borrow when needed to finance their lifestyles.
Some basic facts: Any tax consists of a base, or what is being taxed, times a rate. The income tax's base is "income," which comes from labor or wealth. Income from labor is hard to hide and easy to tax, as the middle class knows full well. Income from wealth is easy to hide and hard to tax -- and perfectly legally.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/24/opinion/mccaffery-romney-tax/index.html
So Ritmo, you probably are getting most of your income from a salary and not from investments. Income as it were. If you taxed investment income the way we tax incomes, do you think people would actually invest to the same degree? That's the whole point of investments. THey incentivize you putting your money somewhere LONG TERM so that you potentially reap the benefit long term. But that only works if the incentive isn't punitive. If you taxed a 401k for example as if it were income, what woudl the incentive be to actually invest in one? Or buy Apple stock or put money into a 401K.
And this is important Ritmo,and why you're so full of crap:
A non-dividend-paying stock, like Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (or land, artwork, sports franchises), does not have to show any taxable income. People who own such things can be very rich and live very well. If we simply raised tax rates, the super-rich would just as simply stop showing income or selling assets. That's why, under an income tax, we pretty much have to have low rates on investment.
The rich don't need a salary to be rich. THey don't need to sell off investments. Therefore, you saying we need to redistribute their wealth by raising taxes, doesn't work that well since they can find ways to not show their income (like Jobs with his dollar salary). But if you decide to go after investing, then you destroy the idea of investing in things like stocks. And that effects the middle class's ability to retire. You're letting the idea of empathy cloud your ability to see reality.
Im not rich. I want to have investments available to work for ME so that someday I can become richer. It's a net benefit to have the ability to invest in place for ME as a middle class person. Understand?
Finally there's the idea that Romney should be taxed because he's a rich guy:
It should concern us that individuals of Romney's wealth -- analysis has put his personal fortune as high as $250 million, not counting some $100 million in trusts set up for his five children -- pay so little as a percent in taxes.
Unless Romney won his fortune winning the lottery, then he earned that money over decades. And as such paid taxes on that income already while working. His personal fortune is the money he has after paying taxes. Should we tax him twice, or thrice on income he's already paid taxes on?
I
Well, O Ritmo, I believe that pointing out the really liberating possibility of not reading your crap (by black-holing it) contributes greatly to the discussion.
BTW, are you an undergrad AI project? Hard to see how you have the time to post so prolifically and stupidly otherwise.
OH geez, jr. A small fish like you can do with a lower rate on your almighty "capital gains". I said that people who rely on it exclusively for their income, like the R-Moneys, should have it taxed at the income rate.
You don't listen very well, do you? But you sure write a up a blue streak defending against your own straw men.
Well, O Ritmo, I believe that pointing out the really liberating possibility of not reading your crap (by black-holing it) contributes greatly to the discussion.
How would you be in a place to judge that? By virtue of the fact that you have NOTHING to say? Sounds like a shit standard.
BTW, are you an undergrad AI project? Hard to see how you have the time to post so prolifically and stupidly otherwise.
Oh this is insanely clever. Do let me know what someone as quiet as yourself considers to be intelligent. You taciturn types like to talk a good game about what you WOULD say, if given the chance. And then it's found that you have nothing to say at all - intelligent or otherwise.
So just go on and keep shutting up. Lead by example, and don't be a douchebag!
O Ritmo wrote:
A small fish like you can do with a lower rate on your almighty "capital gains". I said that people who rely on it exclusively for their income, like the R-Moneys, should have it taxed at the income rate.
People who are retired pretty much rely on their investments exclusively. I suppose we should pay more taxes on grandmas 401k because we think she's not working hard enough or has too much already.
If I win the Lottery and pay whatever in taxes that one time and invest all that money in investment vehicles, why should you be entitled to more of that money? I paid the taxes already. And if I sell the investment vehicle 20 years later, the govt will get its pound of flesh. But if I'm not working why should govt make me pay taxes on what I already have paid taxes on?
You might as well tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to invest that money and put it in my mattress instead. Only you couldn't then argue that you should make me pay a mattress tax on my own nest egg that is sitting in my mattress doing nothing but collecting dust.
I suppose we should pay more taxes on grandmas 401k because we think she's not working hard enough or has too much already.
Nah. If she doesn't have much in there then the rate would be low, thanks to the progressivity that Romney hates and uses as an excuse for bashing the poor.
If she doesn't have much in there then the rate would be low, thanks to the progressivity that Romney hates and uses as an excuse for bashing the poor.
Of course, if reducing tax rates stimulated investment and growth, grandma's dividends would go up.
You acknowledge that aspect of flatter taxes when it's brought up, but then you go right back to assuming that taxes are about dividing a fixed pie.
Ritmo,
you only profit when you sell an asset. And thus get taxed based on the profit or loss of that sale? What if Romney doesn't sell any assets for a gain or a loss? What should his tax rate be?
He's not earning income and hes not selling assets.
If the argument is that you make it more punitive on the capital gains side, why would people sell their assets? Or buy them in the first place?
For exampe, if I have to pay 90% of my profit for selling Apple stock in taxes, why would I sell it, and even more importantly why would I buy it?
An investment is only valuable if I perceive a return on that investment.
And suppose I'm someone who is at Microsoft when they start, as a secretary, say . But get to buy Microsoft dirt cheap before it goes public. And yet because of my stock holding I will be a millionaire if I ever sell my investments. There's a case where I'm only rich on paper if I sell an asset, and I only bought the asset because I assumed it would appreciate in value.
How much do you want to penalize that secretary for the money she has invested in her company stock?
The more punitive you get, the less likely she would have bothered inveseting in the first place.
There are millions of middle class people invested for their retirments who are counting on that money appreciating so they have that money to live on when they can't work anymore. Why are you demanding the govt screw with their retirements?
Of course, if reducing tax rates stimulated investment and growth, grandma's dividends would go up.
You acknowledge that aspect of flatter taxes when it's brought up, but then you go right back to assuming that taxes are about dividing a fixed pie.
I have no problem with "regular folks" investing. By all means, get them in on the investment game.
But our financial sector is bloated, and too many of Mitt's types have been treating investing as a speculative game. We don't need to encourage it more among people with loads of money to shovel around from this share to that. We need to allow people outside of Mitt's "bracket" (I actually shouldn't say "bracket", because Mitt's one of those people who are too special to be taxed on what any sane observer would refer to as his "income") to see investment and treat it as they would income. Stop treating capital gains as special, let people invest it, pre-tax, into whatever account they want, and tax the gain they make according to how well it aligns with the income rate. If they make a ten percent gain on $500k of investment, tax that $50k the same way you would $50k of income. And so on.
It's not hard. And regular folks would understand it. Which I assume must, for some strange reason, really tear you up.
Which I assume must, for some strange reason, really tear you up.
Your reasoning is indeed strange, b/c on numerous threads I've advocated treating capital gains as ordinary income--along w/ eliminating the corporate tax, of course. Tax all income at the personal level, and at the same rate.
Flattening rates, broadening the base, and simplifying the definition of income isn't evil; it's just too simple for DC to be willing to implement.
Flattening rates, broadening the base, and simplifying the definition of income isn't evil; it's just too simple for DC to be willing to implement.
That's because you're using academic terms. You have to address these issues in terms of fairness and equity. You need to make it clear that you're taking into account both our need to pay for what we spend and that you don't want to see the "little guy" (who has less to spend and more urgent spending needs) get screwed at the expense of the favors to the rich guy.
But either way, glad we agree.
Well, that's what you need to do to make those ideas resonate politically, at any rate.
You're probably describing them in a way that would resonate to a certain faction or another, but right now we need broad-based reform - and things that will therefore play in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way.
I'm sure more of them are out there...
This is more than a bit amusing.
Ritmo and its puppet Inga scream about taxes, but what do we know about Obama, the Obama Party, and taxes?
They. Don't. Pay Them.
So that's what one needs to keep in mind. Neither Ritmo or Inga has condemned the Obama Party and its tax cheats.
Instead, they scream and make up all sorts of lies and smears about Republicans.
When you realize that both Ritmo and Inga are hypocrites and bigots, their power vanishes.
The perception of fairness is one reason I don't buy into the academic literature recommending a zero tax on capital income. I think most of what would be accomplished thru that could be achieved by allowing deductions for net saving. But even then I'm willing to give that up in exchange for greater simplicity and perceived fairness in the tax code.
Moreover, one must remember that Ritmo and Inga really follow one fundamental economic theory: namely, money must be taken from those who work and given to those who vote for it.
In the minds of Ritmo, Inga, and the Obama Party, it is better to take the money from people who work and give it to drunks, adult babies, and others who don't want to work.
This is why liberal economics fail. People like Ritmo and Inga invent tortuous rationalizaations, but at the end of the day, it all involves taking money from people who work and produce value so that people like Ritmo and Inga don't have to do so.
In short, they have spent the past four years taking trillions of dollars away from working people and giving it to drunks, druggies, and perverts so they can purchase votes for the Obama Party.
Once you get that figured out, the rest of their whining and blabbering becomes comprehensible. It's all an attempt on their part to sit on their lazy asses and collect a welfare check from the work of others.
Well Dallas, if you could only convince your other red states to take less from the federal government than what they contribute, then maybe you'd have a point.
In the meantime, I don't want to hear a Texan yammer on about "socialist spending/non-funding" until they do something about their fellow red-state government moochers and teat sucklers, ya hear?
That's because you're using academic terms. You have to address these issues in terms of fairness and equity. You need to make it clear that you're taking into account both our need to pay for what we spend and that you don't want to see the "little guy" (who has less to spend and more urgent spending needs) get screwed at the expense of the favors to the rich guy.
This is a lie.
As we see, Ritmo's fundamental argument is that it's not "fair" that anyone has more money than he does.
Ritmo will never and can never acknowledge that other people DESERVE to have more money than he does. He insists that anyone who has more money than he does does not "deserve" it and that it needs to be taken from them in the name of "fairness".
This is typical of Obama supporters. They want nothing more than for other people to work for them. They scream and cry and wail and call you names when you refuse to give them your earnings and insist that doing so is not "fair".
Ritmo earns nothing. Inga earns nothing. Both of them are helpless welfare addicts, dependent on the Obama Party to pay their bills.
North Dallas is an incompetent, lazy meth addict who sits on his ass all day and demands that the federal gov't give his state more than he contributes, as do the majority of conservatively led states.
Chip, I do hope that the fantasist Dallas' perception of fairness isn't the one that you had in mind.
Warped perception, that is. This map shows it better. The warped nature of his perception.
Well Dallas, if you could only convince your other red states to take less from the federal government than what they contribute, then maybe you'd have a point.
In the meantime, I don't want to hear a Texan yammer on about "socialist spending/non-funding" until they do something about their fellow red-state government moochers and teat sucklers, ya hear?
Sorry. Your lies mean nothing, given your own refusal to pay the taxes you already owe.
And, from the first example, we see how you and your fellow Obama supporters commit welfare fraud and mooch.
Besides not paying those pesky taxes, Mr. Rangel had other reasons for wanting to hide income. As the tenant of four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, the Congressman needed to keep his annual reported income below $175,000, lest he be ineligible as a hardship case for rent control. (He also used one of the apartments as an office in violation of rent-control rules, but that’s another story.)
Mr. Rangel said last fall that “I never had any idea that I got any income’’ from the villa. Try using that one the next time the IRS comes after you. Equally interesting is his claim that he didn’t know that the developer of the Dominican Republic villa had converted his $52,000 mortgage to an interest-free loan in 1990. That would seem to violate House rules on gifts, which say Members may only accept loans on “terms that are generally available to the public.” Try getting an interest-free loan from your banker.
The National Legal and Policy Center also says it has confirmed that Mr. Rangel owned a home in Washington from 1971-2000 and during that time claimed a “homestead” exemption that allowed him to save on his District of Columbia property taxes. However, the homestead exemption only applies to a principal residence, and the Washington home could not have qualified as such since Mr. Rangel’s rent-stabilized apartments in New York have the same requirement.
Since you won't pay your taxes and you endorse and support tax cheats and welfare fraud, you are a liar and a hypocrite.
Furthermore, I have provided linked, referenceable evidence of all of these facts. You fail to do so.
Awww, where did you go, North? Off to get drunk, snort some meth, sit on your ass and demand that the federal government pay for it, as it does for others in your state and the states that vote like it?
What a shame you are.
Take it easy, Chip. Have a good one.
North Dallas is an incompetent, lazy meth addict who sits on his ass all day and demands that the federal gov't give his state more than he contributes, as do the majority of conservatively led states.
More lies from the supporter and endorser of tax cheats.
Since you won't pay your taxes and lie and cheat and steal now, Ritmo, your attempts to raise the taxes of others only show your own bigotry and hate.
Notice also how the helpless Ritmo can't even condemn the Obama Party for these tax cheats. Indeed, Ritmo has openly endorsed and supported every one of these tax cheats.
If you have trouble finding the links, North - perhaps you need to ask someone who's not color-blind the difference between blue and black. The blue text is hyperlinked. Although a blowhard like yourself is probably used to seeing black and blue as the same color.
I'm not aware that the WSJ and LA Times had access to my tax returns.
Maybe you're thinking of Mitt ROmney - NOT!
Did someone invent a bot that uses the words "cheat", "lie", "steal" in random succession while endlessly linking irrelevant articles?
I'm not aware that the WSJ and LA Times had access to my tax returns.
Maybe you're thinking of Mitt ROmney - NOT!
Too bad. You support and endorse those Obama supporters who cheat on their taxes.
This is typical of the Obama cult, though. You simply aren't mentally capable of admitting that cheating on your taxes is wrong when someone is an Obama supporter.
This is also why you oppose tax reform of any sort. Obama supporters such as yourself simply cheat and do not pay, depending on the Obama Party not to enforce the laws.
You support and endorse those Obama supporters who cheat on their taxes.
Which Obama "supporter" did I "endorse"? Which one is running for office?
Do you know the meaning of those words?
This is also why you oppose tax reform of any sort.
Ok, I can see that you're incapable of reading -- including the entire discussion that I just had with someone who wants to end corporate taxes.
Obama supporters such as yourself simply cheat and do not pay, depending on the Obama Party not to enforce the laws.
Careful! Libel is against the law in Texas - as we saw when those big powerful ranchers couldn't stand it when Oprah Winfrey said something --- Awww!!! -- CRITICAL about the beef industry. And I wouldn't want to see Governor Perry execute you, despite your manifestly evident mental deficiencies, which even the SCOTUS has decided is no excuse against carrying out such a "cruel and unusual punishment" as that!
The story at ND30's "drunks" link is truly astonishing. Thankfully, that insane program appears to be funded out of local taxes, not federal.
As for the map showing the distribution of net federal cash flows across states, I don't think it makes the point you're trying to make, Ritmo, for these reasons:
1. I think that a disproportionate share of military bases are in red states. The soldiers stationed there aren't receiving any handouts, they're being paid salaries for services rendered.
2. The Sun Belt states have a huge share of retirees, and we know that Social Security and Medicare are huge parts of federal spending. If, on average, people are more likely to pay their SS taxes while living outside the Sun Belt and receive their SS benefits while living in the Sun Belt, there's no meaningful redistribution going on.
3. Blue-state populations tend to be wealthier, so they pay more in income taxes than red states. But that's exactly what Democrats want, so I don't see how that counts against Republicans.
Did someone invent a bot that uses the words "cheat", "lie", "steal" in random succession while endlessly linking irrelevant articles?
Oh, is the desperate troll Ritmo trying to hide from his support of tax cheats?
Let's show how the desperate troll Ritmo praises and supports cheating on taxes.
The tax revelations are the only the latest problem for McCaskill involving the plane,however.
In the wake of a Politico report that had billed the government for her travel on the aircraft, she quickly reimbursed taxpayers for the trips, hoping to avoid a protracted political problem.
But, it was then revealed that she had billed taxpayers for a purely political trip — deepening her potential exposure on the issue.
Repeatedly.
Ohio Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown was more than four months delinquent in paying taxes on his Washington, D.C., apartment and had to pay a penalty and interest last week.
This was not the first time, records show.
Brown also was delinquent in 2006 and 2007 and paid penalties and interest, according to tax records from the District of Columbia.
And how the desperate troll Ritmo, who shrieked that anyone who uses means to reduce their tax bill is a criminal, supports and endorses for President people who do exactly that.
Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.
And there's sniveling little bigot Ritmo, who endorses and supports every single one of them.
LOL.
Which Obama "supporter" did I "endorse"? Which one is running for office?
My goodness, Ritmo is really quite unstable. He doesn't know that Charles Rangel, Sherrod Brown, and Claire McCaskill, all Obama-supporting tax cheats, are running for office -- even though he endorses and supports every single one of them.
Or he's just a malicious liar.
Probably a bit of both.
Go back about 3-4 months on sites like DailyKos and Democratic Underground and you'll see plenty of anti-Mormon references in the comments, and allusions in the main posts, because the Obama campaign was pushing it out there. It never really caught on beyond their own fever swamp and they backed away and went on to throwing other slime. But they tried and had it worked it would have been all Mormon all the time.
Tex, seriously now - which prison system are you posting from? Do they actually allow you guys internet access? My, have times changed!
Maybe you're in one of those prison systems to which the state has outsourced various services as a way to cut costs. That would explain it.
I don't live in MO, NY, or OH, so I can't vote for Senate candidates from those states. Therefore, there is no reason for me to offer any "endorsement" of those states' candidates. Besides, I'm not sure an endorsement from a pseudonymous internet commenter would mean all that much.
Did you know how voting works, Tex? Do they still have voting in your state?
As for the map showing the distribution of net federal cash flows across states, I don't think it makes the point you're trying to make, Ritmo, for these reasons:
Plus, Chip, there are simple mathematics involved.
California is the nation’s welfare queen: The state accounts for one-third of America’s welfare recipients, though it only contains one-eighth of the population, and there’s no good reason for it.
Some of California’s welfare problem can be attributed to its particularly severe economic slump (California’s unemployment rate is 2.7 percentage points above the national average). But states in similar situations have significantly smaller caseloads; for example, Nevada, with the nation’s highest unemployment, at 11.7 percent, has a welfare-participation rate about one-quarter of California’s. In California, 3.8 percent of the population receives monthly welfare checks. In no other state is more than 3 percent of the population on the dole.
Some may assume that the illegal-immigrant population in California expands its welfare rolls. But in Texas, which also has a large illegal-immigrant population, less than one half of one percent of the population receives welfare.
How do I "support" these candidates? Have I sent them money, you stupid douchebag/typical red state shitforbrains.
Chip, maybe it's good that guys like Dallas provide our cannon fodder, but I'm not sure how welfare to the defense industry is NOT a form of spending.
Wait, so my endorsement of Sherrod Brown was recorded in The Boston Herald? That's news to me.
How do I "support" these candidates? Have I sent them money, you stupid douchebag/typical red state shitforbrains.
11/5/12 12:22 AM
Why easy. By your own standards, since you shriek that merely expressing support for ANY Republican means you support ALL Republicans, then you support and endorse all of these people.
Or unless you want to say that you were lying previously and that it's only fair to say someone "supports" someone if they make a donation to them.
And of course, we should remember that you scream and piss yourself about defense being "welfare" even as you demand that people pay you money to get blind drunk and to sit around all day in a diaper.
Think those add the same value to the economy as defense spending? Of course you do. That's the liberal mantra; giving money to drunks is the ultimate "stimulus".
I'm not sure how welfare to the defense industry is NOT a form of spending.
It's spending, but it's not welfare.
I would grant you that it was some sort of favoritism toward residents of those states if the soldiers were all locals being hired into make-work jobs. But neither of those is true.
My "praise and support for tax cheats" was also apparently recorded in the Washington Post, according to the lobotomized prison-system deviant who snuck away from the call center to post while the warden was sleeping.
It's favortism to the industries who do business there.
So defense is not welfare? You're saying the purpose is to go to war but not make everyone safer?
Hmmmm.... Sounds like you're saying they're not achieving the stated objective. Maybe time to cut back...
My "praise and support for tax cheats" was also apparently recorded in the Washington Post, according to the lobotomized prison-system deviant who snuck away from the call center to post while the warden was sleeping.
Oh, but there's WAY more than that.
Now, back taxes have been a problem for the Obama-Biden administration. You may recall early on that Tom Daschle was the president's top pick to run the Health and Human Services Department. But it turned out the former Democratic senator, who was un-elected from South Dakota in 2004, owed something like $120,000 to the IRS for things from his subsequent benefactor that he just forgot to pay taxes on. You know how that is. $120G's here or there. So he dropped out.
And then we learned this guy Timothy Geithner owed something like $42,000 in back taxes and penalties to the IRS, which is one of the agencies that he'd be in charge of as secretary of the Treasury. The fine fellow who's supposed to know about handling everyone else's money. In the end this was excused by Washington's bipartisan CYA culture as one of those inadvertent accidental oversights that somehow never seem to happen on the side of paying too much taxes.
And under Geithner's expert guidance the U.S. economy has been, well, wow! Just look at it.
Privacy laws prevent release of individual tax delinquents' names. But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama's very own White House owe the government they're allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House Mess.
Isn't it funny how you and your fellow tax hikers are all about tax cheating and not paying what you CURRENTLY owe?
Tex, that LA Times article was great! And doing the interview with them was such a hoot! I just regret that my actual name, O Ritmo Segundo, wasn't recorded in the article. But maybe that was the name that Tom Daschle (or Tim Geithner - same person) was going by at the time that the EDITORIAL was written.
Chip - you going to claim credit for guys like Tex appropriating your cause? You happy to claim him as an ideological ally?
At the very least you could ask him to shut the fuck up and get back to his community college courses. This is annoying and I've already spent too much time here with the marginally cogent...
So defense is not welfare? You're saying the purpose is to go to war but not make everyone safer?
Hmmmm.... Sounds like you're saying they're not achieving the stated objective. Maybe time to cut back...
11/5/12 12:30 AM
And of course, Ritmo wants to cut back on national defense because Ritmo wants more of peoples' money taken to pay for this:
San Francisco has paid at least $150,000 for Kenny Walters in the past year. He isn't employed, has an arrest record as long as his hair, and can often be found passed out in a doorway on Haight Street.
Kenny Walters' job is to get drunk.
And this:
Stanley Thornton Jr., 30, is a self-described "adult baby," who sleeps in a huge crib, drinks from a bottle, wears diapers, lives with a former nurse who acts as his "mom"... and subsists on Social Security disability benefits.
But then, one has to remember that Ritmo and his fellow Obama supporters and Obama Party members use the welfare system themselves.
Besides not paying those pesky taxes, Mr. Rangel had other reasons for wanting to hide income. As the tenant of four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, the Congressman needed to keep his annual reported income below $175,000, lest he be ineligible as a hardship case for rent control. (He also used one of the apartments as an office in violation of rent-control rules, but that’s another story.)
O Ritmo wrote:
That's because you're using academic terms. You have to address these issues in terms of fairness and equity. You need to make it clear that you're taking into account both our need to pay for what we spend and that you don't want to see the "little guy" (who has less to spend and more urgent spending needs) get screwed at the expense of the favors to the rich guy.
There you go again with the fairness and equity. As defined by Ritmo of course. As for the need to pay for what we spend, it might be nice if govt actually did that, and not put us ever further into debt. It seems like, unless we are driving the debt into the stratosphere we are not engaging in fairness.
And at the end of the day despite all that govt fairness, what do we have to show for it. 8% unemployment. Almost half those graduating college not able to get a job? Why not have govt, try to solve THAT problem. Why not hold govt accountable for not solving that problem?
I dont think you know what those words mean.
Good night, Chip.
Tex - try some Ambien. It might help the effects of the meth wear down.
Ritmo wrote:
At the very least you could ask him to shut the fuck up and get back to his community college courses. This is annoying and I've already spent too much time here with the marginally cogent...
THe short of it is he's calling you guys a bunch of hypocrites. You talk about redistribution and paying more in taxes, yet those who could don't. Hypocrites. I realize that will send you off on one of your snarky tears, but you might want to address the charge, rather than looking like a complete douchebag?
Perhaps you could argue that the dems are in fact not hypocrites, or there is a reason for their hypocricy. Absent that though, we're left with your childish cuntiness.
Chip - you going to claim credit for guys like Tex appropriating your cause? You happy to claim him as an ideological ally?
At the very least you could ask him to shut the fuck up and get back to his community college courses. This is annoying and I've already spent too much time here with the marginally cogent...
Awww, little bigot boy Ritmo not want to play by his own rules?
Looks like Ritmo is trying to demand that other people go after their "ideological allies" even as he squeals and cries that he has nothing to do with and can't possibly be held accountable for the actions of the tax cheats in the Obama Party that he endorses and supports for election.
Looks like Ritmo is as much a hypocrite as he is a bigot and liar. Looks like Ritmo can't take responsibility for his "ideological allies" like Obama, Rangel, McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, John Kerry, Geithner, Solis, etc....
jr, settle down. You're starting to sound like Tex. I never defended any tax cheat - you're starting to sound like you're becoming a part of Tex's delusion, and that's the last thing you want. Especially when they have to strap him down each night and pull down the back of his pants for his injection.
So defense is not welfare? You're saying the purpose is to go to war but not make everyone safer?
This ties back nicely to our discussion of taxes.
You're focusing on the purchase of inputs to defense, and calling those the benefits. But they're not. The benefit of defense spending, ultimately, comes in the form of whatever value people receive from being defended. Without getting into the issue of whether we're spending too much on defense (you and I may not be all that far apart on it), I think it's clear that the main economic benefit from being defended against real threats is the protection of life and property. Those benefits are plausibly proportional to the value of one's wealth and income, in which case they exactly offset proportional income taxes.
Yeah, I know it's a bit theoretical, and I don't want to get into a whole argument about Iraq and so forth, but saying that the benefits of military spending are lower than their cost is a different argument from saying that their costs are their benefits.
North Dallas, I'll take as much responsibility for Charlie Rangel as you're willing to take for Mark Foley.
Of course, none of those people are here or in communication with us. Whereas Chip is.
jr, settle down. You're starting to sound like Tex. I never defended any tax cheat - you're starting to sound like you're becoming a part of Tex's delusion, and that's the last thing you want. Especially when they have to strap him down each night and pull down the back of his pants for his injection.
11/5/12 12:41 AM
LOL, nope. You wanted to scream "ideological allies", and now you're being held to the same set of rules.
That's why you're crying and blabbering instead of just being a man and acknowledging that your Obama and your Obama Party endorse and support tax cheats and welfare fraud.
Chip, there's a bit of a disconnect between the intelligence required of where you'd like to take the discussion and where North Dallas would like to take it. Lunatics like him have a way of getting in the way of things. I'd like to tune him out, but this was starting to wind down anyway. We seem to have largely agreed on tax policy aims; leaving defense for another night would make sense.
O Ritmo wrote:
I don't live in MO, NY, or OH, so I can't vote for Senate candidates from those states. Therefore, there is no reason for me to offer any "endorsement" of those states' candidates.
I think it's quite clear to anyone on these boards that you vote almost entirely along party/ideological lines. I doubt, that we'd have to ask who the republican candidate running against the constituents in the various states were to distinguish where you stood on them. As such, your endorsement is a given.
You wanted to scream "ideological allies", and now you're being held to the same set of rules.
THe "rules" include being able to distinguish between someone present on the thread and someone who only exists either in D.C. but is somehow only in direct communication with the thread participants in your own syphilitic imagination.
North Dallas, I'll take as much responsibility for Charlie Rangel as you're willing to take for Mark Foley.
11/5/12 12:43 AM
Well, since you screamed and pissed along with your Barack Obama and your Nancy Pelosi that every single Republican was responsible for Mark Foley, then you are responsible for Charlie Rangel.
Either say your Obama Party was wrong and that all Republicans are not responsible, or own up to Rangel.
And if you don't you're a hypocrite.
Obama Party members like you are so easy to trip up because you really aren't mentally or emotionally capable of recognizing illegal and improper behavior. Your cult brainwashing requires you to support them and you do it beautifully.
As such, your endorsement is a given.
As such, "endorsements" are given by people who have a broader audience than what exists on a chat board.
How old are you? Seriously?
THe "rules" include being able to distinguish between someone present on the thread and someone who only exists either in D.C. but is somehow only in direct communication with the thread participants in your own syphilitic imagination.
But, since you hold every single Republican responsible for anything any other Republican says elsewhere, you are required to do the same.
But you can't, because you are a liar, a hypocrite, and a bigot.
This is typical of Obama supporters, though. As we see from Obama himself, Rangel, McCaskill, and others, Obama supporters scream and demand that other people pay taxes, then don't do so themselves. Obama supporters are abusers of government, using governmental power to illegally avoid paying their bills.
Well, since you screamed and pissed along with your Barack Obama and your Nancy Pelosi that every single Republican was responsible for Mark Foley
Every single Republican IN OFFICE, NOT every single Republican VOTER, you dumb fuckface.
As such, "endorsements" are given by people who have a broader audience than what exists on a chat board.
And yet you scream and cry and insist that others here on this chat board have "endorsed" whatever Republican candidate you pull out of thin air.
Either state that you were lying and that merely being a Republican does not mean you endorse everything every other Republican does, or demonstrate that you are a hypocrite.
Obama children are mentally incapable of following their own rules. That's why we see the Obama Party screaming that Jon Corzine should be allowed to steal as much as he wants.
And yet you scream and cry and insist that others here on this chat board have "endorsed" whatever Republican candidate you pull out of thin air.
Where have I done this? Where? In the Washington Post? In the LA Times?
Hot damn are you a wasted piece of work.
Chip, take care. Tex is all yours now. Looks like he's been here before and might come back, though. Enjoy him!
Every single Republican IN OFFICE, NOT every single Republican VOTER, you dumb fuckface.
Nope, sorry. You blamed Republicans period, no caveats. You insist now that every single Republican is responsible for anything that any other Republican says or does.
No wonder your obscenity count is going up. You're hoping that a tantrum will get you out of this, since you're clearly trapped in your own rules.
That's typical of Obama supporters, though. Obama supporters, as I've repeatedly cited, never follow the laws and scream and cry that it's not fair when they get caught. Obama supporters are all cheats who are looking to use the government to unfairly tilt the playing field toward them.
Ok Tex. If this is your crude way of condemning Republican excesses - by "refusing to 'endorse' everything they do", I fully accept your having seen the light and look forward to many further condemnations of their shenanigans by you in the future. Not that you've ever offered one before.
o Ritmo wrote:
THe "rules" include being able to distinguish between someone present on the thread and someone who only exists either in D.C. but is somehow only in direct communication with the thread participants in your own syphilitic imagination.
Come now, Ritmo. If you look at ANY conversation of which you are a part, your arguemnts are across the board hyper partisan and you link those on the board with the sins of Republicans who we might or might not vote for. Linking them to the actions, and ideologies which you deem are sins of conservatives, traits which most conservatives in fact have or share.
Is it not fair then that others like democratic hypocricy to hyper partisans carrying the water of the democratic party.
You say you don't defend the tax cheats. You are such a hypocrite though, any tax cheating from democrats goes unnoticed. When pointed out, it's met with snarky diversion about those making the charges being retarded.
When, if you were honest you could either defend your side, or agree that in this instance your side, or even some on your side ARE hypocrites. But Speaking truth to Power for you is a completely one sided affair.
Ok Tex. If this is your crude way of condemning Republican excesses - by "refusing to 'endorse' everything they do", I fully accept your having seen the light and look forward to many further condemnations of their shenanigans by you in the future. Not that you've ever offered one before.
Abnd thus, screaming and crying Ritmo, you admit that you endorse and support your fellow Obama Party tax cheats because you refuse to condemn them.
Liar. Hypocrite. Bigot. You endorse and support tax cheats, and you got caught. LOL.
Well, jr, if you are incapable of distinguishing between policy aims and individual acts of virtue or lawbreaking, then yes, you've misunderstood. I do make that distinction, as any sane person should. A politician is not a substitute for the actual policy they propose.
North Dallas supports Joe Walsh's refusal to pay child support to his wife.
This would be a fun game, if it weren't so stupid.
Oh, I'm sure there are many scoundrels in the GOP that we could do this with. All I have to do is link their bad behavior to a policy preference supported by jr? Yes, I think I could take this even further than they could!
What was Tom Delay indicted for?
Wasn't Tom Tancredo a draft dodger?
How can I get that to reflect on the chickenhawk militarism of Republicans on the board?
Ritmo wrote: Well, jr, if you are incapable of distinguishing between policy aims and individual acts of virtue or lawbreaking, then yes, you've misunderstood. I do make that distinction, as any sane person should. A politician is not a substitute for the actual policy they propose.
Yet you are often the one linking policy aims to law breaking and or individual acts of republicans. That's just who they are. Believe me, Ritmo, if one wants to find the hyper partisan completley one sided liberal talking points painted with as broad a brush as possible, we'd go to you, or perhaps Garage. So sorry, you may talk the talk not with your sudden claim to reasonableness, but that's not the Ritmo we all know and hate.
Again, you reveal your hypocricy even in calling for republicans to not behave in such a partisan manner while you spew at the mouth.
North Dallas supports Joe Walsh's refusal to pay child support to his wife.
Yawn, yawn.
And ha.
Ritmo is shown to be a hypocrite, liar, and bigot again, given how Ritmo refuses to condemn Obama Party members not paying child support while screaming about Republicans.
Obama supporters are liars and hypocrites. One has to remember that they are nothing more than criminal thugs and tax cheats.
Their refusal to finance their wars or tax cuts are collective, political actions, not just individual actions of personal vice.
Although, many of them do seem to be Chickenhawks. Are you sure you know where you're going with this game?
And don't forget Nixon!
If you can't confront their political objective of "starving the beast" by forcing down tax cuts and wars that they refuse to finance without making it a point of personal virtue, then so be it.
I'm just asking for their party to change that habit.
Wasn't Tom Tancredo a draft dodger?
How can I get that to reflect on the chickenhawk militarism of Republicans on the board?
11/5/12 1:12 AM
Too, too easy.
Mr. Biden’s five student deferments equal the number given to Mr. Cheney, who has been quoted as saying he had “other priorities” than military service in the 1960s. Mr. Cheney has been widely derided as a “chicken hawk” and worse in liberal circles over his deferments.
Silly screaming hypocrite and bigot Ritmo has been caught again.
But that's typical. Obama/Biden supporters like Ritmo are just liars and hypocrites. They are mentally incapable of following the rules they demand of others.
North Dallas is shown to be a hypocrite, liar, and bigot again, given how North Dallas refuses to condemn Tea Party members for being convicted of breaking finance laws while screaming about Democrats.
What was Tom Delay indicted for?
11/5/12 1:11 AM
Did the liar Ritmo really want to get slapped again with who the Ritmo/Obama Party endorsed and supported?
Voters looked past a federal bribery investigation of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) and reelected the eight-term congressman in a runoff election Saturday.
Jefferson grabbed a commanding lead over state Rep. Karen Carter, a fellow Democrat, almost as soon as the polls closed in the New Orleans district. With 44 percent of the precincts reporting, Jefferson, had 61 percent of the vote.
Obama Party members like Ritmo overwhelmingly support bribery and fraud. Facts are facts.
O Ritmo wrote:
Yes, arithmetic works. No point in passing a budget for the benefit of people who disbelieve in arithmetic and believe instead in magic tax cuts.
No point at all. Except the law of course. Considering even that doesn't compel them to do their jobs it's quite funny that you're deriding republicans fuzzy math and magic tax cuts.
If you aren't even going to bring something to the table, even though you are required to, then you have no basis to criticize others sitting at the table.
They are mentally incapable of following the rules they demand of others.
Like asking to people to fight the wars they're willing to launch as a first, rather than a last, resort?
Yep. Democrats don't get us as bogged down in optional, involved wars like Iraq the way Republicans do - as a FIRST resort.
Hey everyone! Look at what North Dallas did!
North Dallas is shown to be a hypocrite, liar, and bigot again, given how North Dallas refuses to condemn Tea Party members for being convicted of breaking finance laws while screaming about Democrats.
Of course, since the liar Ritmo directly endorses and supports those who break campaign finance laws, what we see again is that Ritmo is nothing more than a deluded liar, bigot, and hypocrite.
A fund-raising committee run by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was fined $21,000 for improperly accepting donations over federal limits, according to records and interviews.
Didn't the screaming liar Ritmo say that anyone who committed a campaign finance violation should resign from Congress? Didn't the screaming liar Ritmo insist that any party who would elect someone who violated campaign finance laws as Speaker or Minority Leader was corrupt?
Yes, yes Ritmo did. And now we see the liar, bigot, and hypocrite Ritmo cower, because Ritmo fully endorses and supports the campaign finance criminal Pelosi.
Joe Paterno is a Republican, which means that North Dallas supports covering up child molestation investigations!
Like asking to people to fight the wars they're willing to launch as a first, rather than a last, resort?
11/5/12 1:22 AM
Whoops! Screaming bigot boy Ritmo said anyone who had any kind of draft deferment whatsoever was a "chickenhawk" and unfit to serve as Vice President.
Of course, the liar Ritmo endorsed and supported "chickenhawk" Joe Biden, who had no less than five of them.
Poor, deluded, sick liar Ritmo. Looks like Ritmo can't come up with a coherent and intelligent argument. But of course, we expect that from an Obama drone, who lacks any sort of mental independence and merely repeats Obama talking points like the good brainwashed cultist he is.
Meade, is that you?
Joe Paterno is a Republican, which means that North Dallas supports covering up child molestation investigations!
Whoops! Looks like Obama supporters endorse and support child molestation and coverups.
Not to mention how Obama supporters like Ritmo insist that when they drug and sexually coerce fourteen year olds, it's not really rape.
Good night, Meade.
Oops, looks like Ritmo is now attacking ghosts. I think I've pushed him far enough off the edge now. Maybe he might even think. LOL.
O Ritmo wrote:
Like asking to people to fight the wars they're willing to launch as a first, rather than a last, resort?
Yep. Democrats don't get us as bogged down in optional, involved wars like Iraq the way Republicans do - as a FIRST resort.
All wars are optional, and wars of choice and there is no such thing as a literal last resort. Iraq was a a war of FIRST resort?
Yeah, I get that coming from a democrat who has blinders on when it comes to 8 years of history under CLinton. But the record is, the Iraq War is the culmination of hostilities begun after the end of the first Iraq War. it wasn't like Bush just pointed at a map one day and said, HMMMM Iraq looks like a good place to attack.
No, rather, we had 15 resolutions passed by the UN and the failure of containment,not to mention military attacks on Iraq all before Bush set foot in office.
If Romney is elected he will have to deal with Iran and the whole history of Iran prior to his becoming president. HIstory doens't do a reboot and start at GO just because he's president now. (Though that does appear to be the extent of democrats memories of past events). Rather, he will look at the current situation and weigh that against things that have already been tried by previous adminisrations and determine whether they worked or not. And war might be declared. But that doesn't mean its a FIRST option.
People who argue that can never really say when the last resort will occur. It's simply a buzzword for saying you dont agree with the outcome.
For example. was Obama escalating in Iraq a choice of LAST resort? THere were literally no other choices presented to him that he could have come up with?
Libya was a kinetic military action of last resort? Really? How much diplomacy was engaged in before we sent out the drones?
And Obama did send people into war. Just because the media isn't highlighting the latest grim reminders of troop deaths doesn't make it not so.
O Ritmo wrote;
Obama has cut spending (in Medicare) and the Randian austerity-lover Paul Ryan squealed.
Spending will come down and has to come down, but I don't trust budget busting, defense-spending increase-loving Republicans to do that.
They won't. They'll just decrease revenue with an unecessary upper-bracket tax cut and call it a day.
Romney even suggesting that we cut funding for PBS was met with The Million Muppet March.
Dems are even outraged at cutting funding for muppets. That's how unserious they are.
Despite the fact that Sesame Street is a multimillion dollar operation that gets at most about 6% of its money from govt funding. As if somehow the market couldnt' find a place for Sesame Street despite having channels like Nikelodean. Even that becomes an ad for republicans trying to hurt poor people.
Dems are not talking about cutting anything serious. Nor are they serious about budget proposals considering they haven't presented any in 3 + years.
Your saying spending wil come down and has to come down has certainly not been borne out by 4 years of Obama, so why you think it's somehow a given is perhaps wishful thinking on your part. (and that's being charitable)
If Americans deemed it appropriate to elect a black President — however, incompetent — the would have no problem electing a Mormon one, whose competence will remain in question until he is tested.
If Americans deemed it appropriate to elect a black President — however, incompetent — the would have no problem electing a Mormon one, whose competence will remain in question until he is tested.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा