Republican Tax Nonsense

[Magic Man]

You honestly want the United States to be Communist...?

It would help if you would actually read what was written and stick to that. Making stuff up like this doesn't help a discussion.

I put this on another post. If it's something he's passionate about, he'll put that first. If it's something he's not passionate about, he'll put popularty first.

Wow, seems pretty complicated to me. Seems like you've spent some time rationalizing your views on the topic.

Of course. But in today's day and age, legislators have the ability (because of technology) to find out what we want, and so they have the responsibility to make that a large factor in their decision.

Not necessarily. If it's a matter of whether they should build a road in a certain place or build a new power plant somewhere, sure, that should rely on the will of the people to a degree. If it's something important like healthcare or civil rights, then the will of the people isn't as important.

Would you like me to not use examples to prove my point? Or are you just afraid I'm going to prove you wrong?

Whatever you consider that an example of, it wasn't proving any point that was relevant. You're welcome to use examples, and I encourage it, but at least keep them relevant.

You say that as though Liberals don't have Propoganda either.

No, I don't, but you certainly like to accuse me of things that I haven't even implied.

Let's not care about what the people want, it's all about what mball thinks is best for the country!

Ah, the classic defense. No, it's not what I want for the country. It's what any rational, reasonable person wants for the country when they look at the facts or our situation and the situations of other developed countries.

Because I don't let MY opinions affect the way this country should be run like YOU do. You complain that Republicans try to stick their religious feet into the law, bu you only care about your own opinions and think that's the way things should be no matter what. How dare you bring up the Constitution - because you don't even follow it!

Um...first, where did I bring up the Constitution? I said we're a constitutional republic.

Second, no, you do let your opinions affect your view here. That's why we differ. I look at it objectively. Objectively, without bias, what's the best way to go about things. The best way to is to give everyone equal rights. That's not something that is supposed to be voted on, even according to the constitution.

Third, where did I bring up religious people here? You should really keep your rebuttals to things I've actually said here. Now, of course there are Christians who try to circumvent the Constitution and get things done that shouldn't be done. I don't only care about my opinions. If you have rational opinions based on facts, I'm more than willing to listen. If all you have is weak appeals to emotion based on propaganda and not facts, then we're going to have problems.

No, it's going to help some and it's going to hurt some.

No, it's going to help some and hurt no one. Now, granted, it could have been a hell of a lot better, and the end result wasn't anything I would have hoped for, but we needed something, and this is better than nothing.

I fail to understand how keeping terrorism out of the country is not caring?

I fail to understand how you can possibly believe this is keeping terrorism out of the country. We're fighting a losing battle. Al Qaeda is still around, as is Osama Bin Laden. We're not going to be able to fight them into submission. The best thing for us to do from the beginning was to beef up security here to prevent further attacks. All we've done with the war in Afghanistan is kill our own people. Over 1,000 Americans have died in the war in Afghanistan. How many do you think would have died in terrorist attacks in the last 9 years? And many, many more soldiers' lives have been ruined by their service in the war. It's not like they haven't still tried. We've had at least 2 high-profile attempts at attacks in the past few years.

And that's just Afghanistan. Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. That was just a way to drum up support for Bush.

 

[Magic Man]

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

Great. Now do you have a source for the claim you made for which I asked for a source?

Obama spent tons of tax-payer money on signs to gain support for the Stimulus bill.

And?

Many people will never be in that situation, whether they are close to it or far from it. Therefore, it does not help all. And it hurts the ones it doesn' help through more taxes.

Everyone could end up in that situation. We've seen that with the economic crisis. Give it up. Those programs are there as a safety net for everyone.

So you're putting your opinion over everyone elses. You're saying that what you think is best is more important than what the country thinks is best.

Not quite. I'm putting reason and logic along with facts over the biased opinions of some people who don't like facts or logic.

WOW WOW WOW. An 1,000 page bill? Oh yeah, we knew so much. CONGRESS was even saying they didn't know what they were voting on.

My quota for facepalms has been filled, I think. That thousand-page bill wasn't actually a thousand pages. You were welcome to read it, or you could just read about it, since there were plenty of places to read facts about it. The only people in Congress saying they didn't know what they were voting on were the ones trying to strike it down no matter what it contained.

You really don't think I know how long it took?? Is Fox brainwashing me into thinking that one year = 1 month? Oh yeah, that's definitely it. With all the changes, it should have taken MUCH more than a year.

OK, I'm now over my quota. No piece of legislation should take over a year. The reason it took that long was because of all the changes. The reason it got done was because Obama finally decided to stop the BS and just get it through however he could. Up until then they kept changing it, hoping to get Republican support for it, but we all knew that was never going to happen, even if it gave all Republicans big tax cuts.

But yes, you fell for it. The Republicans fought as long as they could, and then when they couldn't keep it from happening in the end, they tried to pretend that Obama was rushing it through. If they were worried about that, maybe they should have worked with the Democrats a little more.

Same as above

No, I mean a source that supports the claim you're making, that the majority still disapproves of the healthcare bill. Not a source that supports the claim that the majority disapproves of Obama's job.

 

[T-Dawg]

Dear God... Why don't you go move to China then and let me know how much better your life is, kay? But don't expect a country that's in perfectly good working order with great standards of livings to change how it's been doing things for 300 years just because you have such a 'brilliant' philosophy.

Because China's been communist in name only ever since Mao died and they've always been authoritarian from what I know, eliminating the entire benefit of communism in the first place?
Also, many would disagree that America is in "perfectly good working order."

Saying Obama is a moderate is like saying your views arn't insanely extreme.

Well gee, good thing no one's saying either of those things! Obama is a right-winger, and I am insanely extreme. Moving on?

EDIT: For comparison:

Granted, it may be slightly skewed, but I think that difference is more than the margin of error .

Because they thought the new Republican president was going to make slavery illegal. When the country doesn't agree with proposed laws, there can be chaos.

And trying to compromise with those who want to impede progress doesn't reduce the chaos unless they actually want to compromise.

You know as well as I do that times are changing when it comes to religious tolerance. People are becoming increasingly more open-minded. The day will come when people stop trying to put their religion into the government.

That day is not coming anytime soon, judging by the progress America has made thus far. Should we deny basic human rights to people until then?

HA! Am I evil as well because I don't agree with your views?

Yes.

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

Umm, we did change our minds...

Umm, no we didn't. Not a majority, anyway.

Between 1964 and 1978 the American National Election Studies survey asked people whether they favored desegregation. In 1964, only 32% of the population wanted desegregation.

Presumptious of us to go ahead and do the right thing before all the white people changed their minds. How dare we threaten the freedom of all those white people by making blacks equal before the whites were ready!

 

[T-Dawg]

Umm, we did change our minds...

AFTER it was made so. The majority of people were still anti-black at the time of the Civil Rights Act.

 

[justbehappy]

It would help if you would actually read what was written and stick to that. Making stuff up like this doesn't help a discussion.

How is asking you a question defined as making things up? I was actually asking because T-Dawg made it very clear that he wanted the United States to be Communist. So I was simply wondering if you felt the same.

Wow, seems pretty complicated to me. Seems like you've spent some time rationalizing your views on the topic.

How in the world can a two sentence statement be complicated? I couldn't have put it any more simply, and it's not a complicated concept either way.

If it's something important like healthcare or civil rights, then the will of the people isn't as important.

This is the most hypocritical thin I've heard all day

Whatever you consider that an example of, it wasn't proving any point that was relevant. You're welcome to use examples, and I encourage it, but at least keep them relevant.

It was absolutely relevant.

No, I don't, but you certainly like to accuse me of things that I haven't even implied.

If you're going to take a stab at Republicans for something, it should at least be something Liberals don't do, too.

Ah, the classic defense. No, it's not what I want for the country. It's what any rational, reasonable person wants for the country when they look at the facts or our situation and the situations of other developed countries.

So you either lack faith in the country or just think you opinion is more mighty than anyone else's.

Um...first, where did I bring up the Constitution? I said we're a constitutional republic.

To be a Constitutional Republic you have to follw the Constitution...

Second, no, you do let your opinions affect your view here.

My VIEW, of course, so do you, so does everyone. But letting affect HOW TO CHANGE THE COUNTRY - yeah, then it's a problem. I don't want to change the Constitution - I just want it to be realized things put into place that were Unconstitutional in the first place.

The best way to is to give everyone equal rights.

Then we have a VERY different view on what equal is.

Third, where did I bring up religious people here? You should really keep your rebuttals to things I've actually said here.

Sorry if I got you confused with someone else.

No, it's going to help some and hurt no one.

It will negatively affect the people paying for it that receive nothing in return from it.

The best thing for us to do from the beginning was to beef up security here to prevent further attacks.

Like make it so that you can't bring anything at all on a plane? Tap all of the phone calls and internet chats of people from foreign countries? There's only so much you can do before making your citizen's miserable.

 

[justbehappy]

Great. Now do you have a source for the claim you made for which I asked for a source?

Huh...?

And?

Are you serious?

[/quote] Everyone could end up in that situation. We've seen that with the economic crisis. Give it up. Those programs are there as a safety net for everyone.[/quote]
I could win the lottery tomorrow. Coulds are not the issue here. The facts are the issue. And that fact is that most people will never be in that situation. Therefore, it negatively affects most.

Not quite. I'm putting reason and logic along with facts over the biased opinions of some people who don't like facts or logic.

Thanks for the insult Now where is this logic you were speaking of?

My quota for facepalms has been filled, I think. That thousand-page bill wasn't actually a thousand pages. You were welcome to read it, or you could just read about it, since there were plenty of places to read facts about it. The only people in Congress saying they didn't know what they were voting on were the ones trying to strike it down no matter what it contained.

This isn't true. There were many times when changes were made and Congress has to vote on it only a couple days later. It was impossible to go through and find all the changes in some of the amounts of time given.

OK, I'm now over my quota. No piece of legislation should take over a year.
Something of such importance?? Absolutely! And ESPECIALLY something so long. Ample time is needed for research and changes and for legislators to come to an accurate decision withou being rushed.

The reason it took that long was because of all the changes. The reason it got done was because Obama finally decided to stop the BS and just get it through however he could.

Changes are BS? Nice to know. Let's just rush through every bill and howerever it comes out, oh well!

Up until then they kept changing it, hoping to get Republican support for it, but we all knew that was never going to happen, even if it gave all Republicans big tax cuts.

Ha, maybe they arn't so after being richer after all

The Republicans fought as long as they could, and then when they couldn't keep it from happening in the end, they tried to pretend that Obama was rushing it through.

No, it was obvious from the beginning that he was rushing it through.

If they were worried about that, maybe they should have worked with the Democrats a little more.

Why do you believe that they didn't?

No, I mean a source that supports the claim you're making, that the majority still disapproves of the healthcare bill. Not a source that supports the claim that the majority disapproves of Obama's job.

The source was about the healthcare bill. What are you talking about? Did I give you the wrong link?

 

[justbehappy]

Because China's been communist in name only ever since Mao died and they've always been authoritarian from what I know, eliminating the entire benefit of communism in the first place?

Find me a Communism country that is 'better' than the United States then, because I certainly am not aware of any.

Also, many would disagree that America is in "perfectly good working order."

We love the perks of living here regardless.

Well gee, good thing no one's saying either of those things! Obama is a right-winger, and I am insanely extreme. Moving on?

At least you'll agree you're extreme...
What was the red dot on the first graph btw?

And trying to compromise with those who want to impede progress doesn't reduce the chaos unless they actually want to compromise.

Of course a compromise is better than forcing it on them

That day is not coming anytime soon, judging by the progress America has made thus far. Should we deny basic human rights to people until then?[/quote]
We have pretty much all the basic rights we need. Gay marriage is really the only civil right people are fighting for now. And as much as I want it, I will wait for it. I would much rather wait than have the government do things the country didn't agree with for other things.

Yes.[/quote]
Oh, you're so open-minded!

 

[justbehappy]

Between 1964 and 1978 the American National Election Studies survey asked people whether they favored desegregation. In 1964, only 32% of the population wanted desegregation.

You didn't mention the results of the 1978 survey, or what today's would be for that matter.

Presumptious of us to go ahead and do the right thing before all the white people changed their minds. How dare we threaten the freedom of all those white people by making blacks equal before the whites were ready!

Do you not know the chaos that arose after desegregation? Adult women throwing objects at black children? Things were pretty darn bad.
I still fail to see why you think I am biased. Segregation is sick and wrong, but I still put my country over my own opinions.

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

You didn't mention the results of the 1978 survey, or what today's would be for that matter.

Your point was that change shouldn't happen until the majority wants it to. The change happened in 1964 and the years prior.

Do you not know the chaos that arose after desegregation? Adult women throwing objects at black children? Things were pretty darn bad.

So desegregation was a bad thing because bigoted whites resorted to violence? Yeah, because there wasn't any white on black violence before that. So, we shouldn't have eliminated slavery then, because that caused all kinds of violence too.
Giving minorities access to their inalienable rights will always be met with violence. That doesn't mean we should stop doing it, or wait for a majority of bigots to be okay with it.

 

[justbehappy]

AFTER it was made so. The majority of people were still anti-black at the time of the Civil Rights Act.[/quote
Are you suggesting that the only reason people grew to support it is because it was made law? Does the fact that weed is illegal make it any less wrong for people that smoke it? Laws don't change people's opinions, they just make them more likely to adhere and less likely to complain.

 

[justbehappy]

Your point was that change shouldn't happen until the majority wants it to. The change happened in 1964 and the years prior.

I'm saying what should happen. Obviously legislatures don't care about our opinions muh.

So desegregation was a bad thing because bigoted whites resorted to violence? Yeah, because there wasn't any white on black violence before that. So, we shouldn't have eliminated slavery then, because that caused all kinds of violence too.

I'm pretty sure the majority were against slavery at the time it was made illegal (that is, after it was truly made illegal - when the Confederates joined the Union once again)

Giving minorities access to their inalienable rights will always be met with violence

And making it law only makes that violence worse in some cases.

 

[Magic Man]

How is asking you a question defined as making things up? I was actually asking because T-Dawg made it very clear that he wanted the United States to be Communist. So I was simply wondering if you felt the same.

No. Asking a question would have been "Do you want America to be communist?". Saying "You honestly want America to be communist?" is not asking a question. It's making an assumption.

How in the world can a two sentence statement be complicated? I couldn't have put it any more simply, and it's not a complicated concept either way.

I'll help you out: "Well, he does what he wants whenever he wants...well, not whenever he wants...sometimes he does things to gain approval, but other times he doesn't care about approval. He only doesn't care about approval when it's something he really wants, but he only cares about approval to get more votes next time because he doesn't actually care about people. Yeah, that's a bit convoluted.

This is the most hypocritical thin I've heard all day

Then you should really look up the definition of hypocritical.

It was absolutely relevant.

Well, saying it's not going to make it true.

If you're going to take a stab at Republicans for something, it should at least be something Liberals don't do, too.

How does that even respond to the comment it was in reference to?

So you either lack faith in the country or just think you opinion is more mighty than anyone else's.

I think there are a lot of people out there who are taken in easily by propaganda and let their emotions decide a lot of things for them. You seem to be a good example of that.

To be a Constitutional Republic you have to follw the Constitution...

And? I'd still hardly call that bringing up the Constitution.

My VIEW, of course, so do you, so does everyone. But letting affect HOW TO CHANGE THE COUNTRY - yeah, then it's a problem. I don't want to change the Constitution - I just want it to be realized things put into place that were Unconstitutional in the first place.

Good. Then we're agreed. Same sex marriage is immediately legal because making it illegal is against the Constitution.

Then we have a VERY different view on what equal is.

I guess so. So, you think not having same-sex marriage is an example of everyone having equal rights? That's got to be one of the weirdest views I've heard.

It will negatively affect the people paying for it that receive nothing in return from it.

You could say the same about public schools, the military, fire departments, and many other things. We're all paying for the wars, too, so using the fact that we're paying for the healthcare bill with taxes doesn't help your point. We're paying for both, but one is killing U.S. citizens, while the other is helping them.

Like make it so that you can't bring anything at all on a plane? Tap all of the phone calls and internet chats of people from foreign countries? There's only so much you can do before making your citizen's miserable.

Is it really that hard to just respond? The best way to go is to just beef up security. Fighting them overseas doesn't help, as we've seen.

 

[Magic Man]

Huh...?

You made the claim that the majority still disapproves of the healthcare bill. I asked for a source. The source you gave me didn't say anything about how many people disapprove of the healthcare bill.

I could win the lottery tomorrow. Coulds are not the issue here. The facts are the issue. And that fact is that most people will never be in that situation. Therefore, it negatively affects most.

What part of "safety net" don't you understand? No, it doesn't negatively affect most. It helps everyone to make sure others are employed and being productive members of society.

Now where is this logic you were speaking of?

It's in front of your face.

This isn't true. There were many times when changes were made and Congress has to vote on it only a couple days later. It was impossible to go through and find all the changes in some of the amounts of time given.

Ugh. You don't really believe this nonsense, do you? Please tell me you're just trolling now.

Something of such importance?? Absolutely! And ESPECIALLY something so long. Ample time is needed for research and changes and for legislators to come to an accurate decision withou being rushed.

A year isn't rushing anyone. I understand that you're biased against this legislation, and that's why you think they should have taken longer, but you're simply wrong. The only reason it took that long is because Obama kept trying to get bipartisan support for it, and kept changing it to make it closer to something the Republicans would possibly vote for. They always had time to speak up and to make sure they understood what was going on. The fact is those who opposed it looked for any excuse they possibly could to oppose it, and they offered no help in finding a compromise.

Changes are BS? Nice to know. Let's just rush through every bill and howerever it comes out, oh well!

Really? This is the best I can expect from you? I guess I should quit now, but I'ma glutton for punishment. Changes are not BS. Voting against something and offering no constructive criticism that could help form a compromise is BS.

Ha, maybe they arn't so after being richer after all

Oh, they are, but these days the most important thing for them is to oppose everything Democratic/Obama. They can't be seen working with Obama, no matter what it's for.

No, it was obvious from the beginning that he was rushing it through.

You can't really be this far gone, can you? He took a year on it. That is not rushing anything through. What he was doing is proposing ideas and trying to form a bipartisan reform of healthcare so that both sides would be at least somewhat satisfied. After a year of trying and proposing bills, and getting nowhere with Republicans, it finally dawned on him that they weren't going to work with him on any healthcare reform at all, so he just went ahead with it anyway at that point.

Why do you believe that they didn't?

I'm seeing part of the problem. Apparently you just haven't been paying attention. That would explain a lot. If you had paid attention, you would have already seen the obvious and blatant answer to this question.

The source was about the healthcare bill. What are you talking about? Did I give you the wrong link?

Apparently. The link you gave me only talked about his approval rating, not the healthcare bill.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm saying what should happen.

And what you're saying is not only wrong; it's one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard in a while.

Obviously legislatures don't care about our opinions muh.

Luckily, at times they don't.

 

[Amill]

I could win the lottery tomorrow. Coulds are not the issue here. The facts are the issue. And that fact is that most people will never be in that situation. Therefore, it negatively affects most.

How do social programs that are meant to help people out when they're down negatively affect the rest of us? Even if they were to affect our pocketbooks more than we would like, most of us still never slip into the sort of poverty the people we're helping are in. Most of us don't have houses that burn down either, should fire protection be privatized too? Should I be against social security because I feel that it's the older folks fault they didn't work hard enough in life to pay for their own retirements?

 

[justbehappy]

No. Asking a question would have been "Do you want America to be communist?". Saying "You honestly want America to be communist?" is not asking a question. It's making an assumption.

Because it seemed you agreed. Sorry if I took it the wrong way.

I'll help you out: "Well, he does what he wants whenever he wants...well, not whenever he wants...sometimes he does things to gain approval, but other times he doesn't care about approval. He only doesn't care about approval when it's something he really wants, but he only cares about approval to get more votes next time because he doesn't actually care about people. Yeah, that's a bit convoluted.

Now you were the onethat made it complicated.

I think there are a lot of people out there who are taken in easily by propaganda and let their emotions decide a lot of things for them. You seem to be a good example of that.

You completely ignored the statement I made and changed the subject.

Good. Then we're agreed. Same sex marriage is immediately legal because making it illegal is against the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court would find it Unconstitutional that it is illegal in most places, then the approval of the country would be unecessary - you are right on that.

I guess so. So, you think not having same-sex marriage is an example of everyone having equal rights? That's got to be one of the weirdest views I've heard.

No, I never said that. I was talking about taxes.

You could say the same about public schools, the military, fire departments, and many other things. We're all paying for the wars, too, so using the fact that we're paying for the healthcare bill with taxes doesn't help your point. We're paying for both, but one is killing U.S. citizens, while the other is helping them.

Our point of views are very different on this. I explained why some of them should be supported by the general welfare clause and why some should not. Military is the only thing I haven't mentioned, but it affects the country equally. We are all under greater protection from harm and the loss of freedom from the military.

Is it really that hard to just respond? The best way to go is to just beef up security. Fighting them overseas doesn't help, as we've seen.

Maybe in this specific situation, but it doesn't mean it never helps.

 

[Magic Man]

Now you were the onethat made it complicated.

No, I was just going back over what you said.

You completely ignored the statement I made and changed the subject.

No, I countered your statement.

If the Supreme Court would find it Unconstitutional that it is illegal in most places, then the approval of the country would be unecessary - you are right on that.

Yes, that would be nice. However, it doesn't seem as though that's going to happen.

No, I never said that. I was talking about taxes.

Oh, well I was talking about equal rights, since that's where that was stemming from.

Our point of views are very different on this. I explained why some of them should be supported by the general welfare clause and why some should not. Military is the only thing I haven't mentioned, but it affects the country equally. We are all under greater protection from harm and the loss of freedom from the military.

And we're all under greater protection from homelessness when we have welfare programs.

Maybe in this specific situation, but it doesn't mean it never helps.

It doesn't mean what never helps? The military? Sure, the military can help, but not in fighting terrorism. Anyway, we're only talking about this one specific situation for our purposes right now.

 

[justbehappy]

No, I countered your statement.

I honestly wanted to know if you thought your opinion was more important than the country's opinion.

Yes, that would be nice. However, it doesn't seem as though that's going to happen.

Well until then, there's nothing we can do about it.

It doesn't mean what never helps? The military? Sure, the military can help, but not in fighting terrorism. Anyway, we're only talking about this one specific situation for our purposes right now.

Well in your opinion then, that's a mistake of the government. They decide what to do with the military.

 

[Magic Man]

I honestly wanted to know if you thought your opinion was more important than the country's opinion.

And that's why I responded with what I did. It's not that I think my opinion is more important than the country's. I think a rational, fact-based opinion is more important than a emotional, non-fact-based opinion. A lot of people in America only have the latter.

Well until then, there's nothing we can do about it.

Yes, there is. We can make it legal.

Well in your opinion then, that's a mistake of the government. They decide what to do with the military.

Yeah, and? You're very good at redirecting conversation. I'd rather keep to the topics that my comments are about, though.