• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
OK, that's what I thought. To be clear, what you're saying here is "No, I can't give you any examples to support my wild accusations; I just believe what I believe, and that's it". Thanks for confirming.
I said something else.
Dishonest little Smurph.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I said something else.
Dishonest little Smurph.

You used different words, but that was the gist. It's not like I'm asking you to tell personal information about anyone or insult anyone. You claimed there are members here who obviously hate the wealthy. I asked for an example. You refused to give one. The only reason for that is that you either don't have one, or you have one, but you don't want to give it because you realize that we'll explain to you that that person doesn't, in fact, hate the wealthy, but just hates the system in place that benefits the wealthy so much.
 

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
Mama Smurph should wash your mouth out with soap for fibbing.

... Do you really have to make personal attacks and be this dishonest to make a coherent argument? Give him an example or he'll rightly assume that you don't have one.


(Psst, an example really isn't that hard to find...)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
... Do you really have to make personal attacks and be this dishonest to make a coherent argument? Give him an example or he'll rightly assume that you don't have one.
Now, now....unless you 2 gals are joined at the hip, you needn't get all huffy on his behalf.
He fibbed about what I said, & called him on it.
I gave him my reason for not naming names.
He just doesn't seem to like it, but it's no big deal.
So let's stick to issues & skip the personal drama. I'd rather make friends than foes here.


Some more interesting topics related to the OP:

It looks like a back door tax increase to offset the legislative compromise:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/IRS-audits-jump-by-11-percent-apf-557157715.html?x=0&.v=4
If you can't get your tax increase legislatively, then do it administratively.

If Obama is looking for some advice, this is the best summary of our predicament I've seen:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e56086c-0882-11e0-80d9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz18EWPR0Xa
 
Last edited:

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
He fibbed about what I said, & called him on it.
I gave him my reason for not naming names.

No, you claimed I was fibbing and tried to call me on that. I was not fibbing or lying. I asked you to support your claim. You refused. That's generally a clear sign you don't have support for it. If you don't have support for a claim, it's best not to make it, or at least not to make one that you claim is so obvious to everyone.

I'm sorry I had to call you out on your usual crap, but don't blame me for your inability to support your bias against others.

He just doesn't seem to like it, but it's no big deal.

What I don't like is you making ridiculous claims and then refusing to back them up when called out. You seem to have no problem doing that, though.

So let's stick to issues & skip the personal drama. I'd rather make friends than foes here.

Cool, then skip all this and just answer the questions I posed. Generally a good way of making friends is not to make baseless claims about people (especially people in the same group as the people you're talking to), and then refuse to support them when asked. So, clearly you're not actually more interested in making friends than foes.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I was not fibbing or lying.
I think you know better, but we'll have to agree to disagree about that. You're overly fixated on being right & winning, rather
than on actually understanding the loyal opposition's point of view. Your name calling & invented quotes don't inspire discussion.
 
Last edited:

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I think you know better, but we'll have to agree to disagree about that. You're overly fixated on being right & winning, rather
than on actually understanding the loyal opposition's point of view. Your name calling & invented quotes don't inspire discussion.

You're pretty good at perceiving faults in others while ignoring your own real ones, aren't you?

What I know is that I asked you a question, and you refused to answer. There is no good reason for you to refuse. Your answer wouldn't be insulting to any poster nor would it be bad form. The only possible reason, then, that you wouldn't provide support for your assertion is that either you don't have any or you don't want us to show why your example is wrong, and therefore you don't have support for your assertion.

What I'm interested in is having people who make wild claims support them or learn not to make them in the future. And I really have to wonder where you get the accusation of "name-calling". I thought it was you using terms like "dishonest smurf" (although you spelled the last word incorrectly).

And I'm not inventing quotes. You said one thing that you want to be taken a certain way. I pointed out that it's really just a dishonest way of saying something else, which we all can see.

So, you have three options. Either retract your incorrect statement that started all of this, support it, or run along with your tail between your legs after being called out by me again. But if you continue to pretend that what you did wasn't dishonest and try to deflect blame by calling me out on things that only you would believe are happening, you only make yourself look worse.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You're pretty good at perceiving faults in others while ignoring your own real ones, aren't you?

What I know is that I asked you a question, and you refused to answer. There is no good reason for you to refuse. Your answer wouldn't be insulting to any poster nor would it be bad form. The only possible reason, then, that you wouldn't provide support for your assertion is that either you don't have any or you don't want us to show why your example is wrong, and therefore you don't have support for your assertion.

What I'm interested in is having people who make wild claims support them or learn not to make them in the future. And I really have to wonder where you get the accusation of "name-calling". I thought it was you using terms like "dishonest smurf" (although you spelled the last word incorrectly).

And I'm not inventing quotes. You said one thing that you want to be taken a certain way. I pointed out that it's really just a dishonest way of saying something else, which we all can see.

So, you have three options. Either retract your incorrect statement that started all of this, support it, or run along with your tail between your legs after being called out by me again. But if you continue to pretend that what you did wasn't dishonest and try to deflect blame by calling me out on things that only you would believe are happening, you only make yourself look worse.
You forgot option #4.
I'll pay less attention to abusive gits.
 
Last edited:

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Does that actually happen? Everything is possible, I suppose, but I have a hard time believing such a scenario to be real.
Yes it is real Luis. Family farms many times must be sold to pay the "estate tax".
Out of curiosity, at what level of wealth is that expected to happen?
Many family farms have hundreds of acres. To support one cow, you would need several acres of land. A herd of 200 cattle could need a 500 acre farm which could be appraised at over 10,000 per acre. That would be 5 million dollars for instance.

The income from a farm like this could be as low as 100,000 a year and that would have to support several families, perhaps two brothers and their parents. That would be 33,000 per household. Even if you double this example, their "estate tax" would be 2.75 million. Yes these people on paper are millionaires, but their life style and income would not reflect this.

Their attitude is, they work the land not own it. They are the stewards of the land till they pass the family farm down to the next generation. They hardly live a luxurious lifestyle.
Ownership of farms beyond a certain size is certainly not an inherent right of, well, anyone. Wealth is not a personal right. It is a privilege.
A family who has worked hard every day for generations who pay their property tax, income tax, social security, state tax, local tax, sales tax and barely get by would hardly agree with you that their farm is a privilege. Their great great grandfather cleared the land before the government even existed. They fought Indians, dealt with dishonest bankers, endured harsh weather and faced poverty to keep those farms.

It's not a privilege to keep their land, the government is privileged to have collected all the taxes they paid for hundreds of years.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Ironically, this is one of the better defenses of socialism that I've heard in awhile. See, what the pure capitalists do not get is that it ain't the poor stealing from the rich, but the other way around. The foreclosure crisis? Who profited off of that? How about credit default swaps? And the bank bailout? The current tax deal before Congress? If you think that any single one of those are "class warfare" of the poor against the rich, you seriously need to rethink all this.

:clap

right on target!!!
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Do I seriously need to post links to any of the many, many stories of hard-working people, and those who have been laid off, who have struggled to put food on the table? Are you putting the burden on those who have been hurt the most by the recklessness and greed of a very few people near the top? What do you not get about NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN?!

Rick why do economic conservatives continue to have no soul? Why do they treat these issues as if people's suffering is something that they deserved and not to even be softened? I'm not asking for complete equality across the board. I just want Americans to be able to have a bite to eat! What kind of a nation are we if that is even a question, let alone intentionally not done?
No soul you say? That is why I provide to a local food bank. These folks get food stamps, but are unable to budget them correctly all month. Our food bank gives to all that ask. We go through alot of food the last week of the month. Some folks are unable to even come to the food bank. We have a program called "backpacks for kids" We pass them out at school.

People are not having trouble finding food, they are spending their food money on non necessities IMHO. I support a battered women's shelter as well. Another project of mine is helping folks with their electric bills during Winter.

What kind of a Nation are we? I say we are kind and generous to a fault.

Americans don't need more help, look at Haiti, those people need help.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
is because of cheap fast food?
This is my point, if you are truly poor, why are you eating out? Food stamps are not redeemable at McDonalds. Spending money on fast food is wasteful when you can prepare a better meal at home cheaper. Another issue is, why are you out and about at McDonalds when you are so poor? People who "cannot afford to feed themselves" are wasting gasoline in a drive thru. :facepalm:


I'm sorry, no one in America is starving to death.
 
Top