it really doesn't read like a joke. and it seems like such an odd place for a politician to inject a joke - a story about your wife being trapped on a burning plane.
you gotta hand it to romney though, the thought of all those people suffocating cause some **** cracked his window down is pretty funny.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, he was clearly talking about income taxes. Strawmanning his point is definitely not a very honest approach to the subject if you consider that's pretty much the only thing done by dems and cans.deja vu
Also, I was part of that "47%" last year: I got paid back more than what I paid in so not only did I pay nothing in income taxes, the US Government paid me to just be a US Citizen, last year. It was awesome. So, please, continue to pay those taxes, people: I need to get mines.
You work so regardless you pay income tax. The government then collects that tax and issues loans and invests in other commodities and projects etc.
Assuming you get a percentage or everything back because you haven't earned enough, does the government pay you dividends on those investments or do they keep the earned interest?
If the government earns interest off your money even if you get all of it back, can you honestly say that you haven't payed any income tax considering you money has worked for someone else?
I let you borrow a cow for a year and you milk it drink the milk, and make a mint making and selling cheese and Ice Cream, are you honestly going to say that I didn't contribute anything to you?
Originally posted by Darth Jello
You work so regardless you pay income tax.
Please show me where I am paying income tax.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Assuming you get a percentage or everything back because you haven't earned enough, does the government pay you dividends on those investments or do they keep the earned interest?
I got everything back and then some.
I paid like....-80% taxes last year. 🙂 So, I got much more than a year bond, at the highest payout possible. 😄
Originally posted by Darth Jello
If the government earns interest off your money even if you get all of it back, can you honestly say that you haven't payed any income tax considering you money has worked for someone else?
It doesn't bother me too much since I got all of it back with quite a bit of interest. Thanks for paying your taxes so I could have some of your money. *tips hat*
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I let you borrow a cow for a year and you milk it drink the milk, and make a mint making and selling cheese and Ice Cream, are you honestly going to say that I didn't contribute anything to you?
That's sounds like an unfair deal. I don't want not stinky poopoo cow. That means I'd have to feed it, clean it, clean up after it, wash it, etc. Keep your cow. I'll go invest in a business or something.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Because of the "Ryan Plan", Ryan has pick up the sort of folk hero status as an "expert" in economics.Its a lot like the way people call Newt Gingrich an intellectual.
Romney wants to win the election by focusing on the economy, and making their ticket look like the best economic choice.
Cool. Thanks for the info.
Originally posted by Oliver North
That both Ryan and Gingrich, the intellectual backbone of the Republican party [sic], have few, if any, positions in which they would disagree with Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman is a point that at least Bill Maher has illuminated.
Really? Do you have a list? Cause that seems bad.
Originally posted by Oliver North
objectively, he should
How is that objective?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Really? Do you have a list? Cause that seems bad.
personally, no, I don't have a list of their policy opinions, but which do you think they differ on?
War with Iran = Good
Poor people need to pay more tax and get less services = Good
The rich need lower tax rates = Good
Rape the environment [drill baby drill, etc] = Good
There may be some nuance, sure, I'll give you that, but I don't think enough that would be really important.
Like, I'll even give it to Mitt, I think he is far more intelligent than he has to act to appeal to his base. I think the strategy is wrong though. he should do what the Democrats have realized: They don't have to appeal to the base, because they are in no risk of losing them.
I can only highlight other conversations I've had on this board, where people who are very much against many policies of Obama and actually support other candidates, but will still vote for Obama because he is the "only real choice" [sic] or whatever. Its where I ask "how many times do you have to vote for a Democrat before they do what you want?", which is basically me saying "you are an idiot for voting against your beliefs because you will never get what you want by supporting the status quo".
Originally posted by dadudemon
How is that objective?
well, like, I'm not even saying Obama is a better candidate or has run a spectacular campaign.
I guess, think of it like this: How many times has the Romney campaign decided it needs to "reboot" up until this point? They did it a couple of times in the primaries, the convention was supposed to be where you "met" Romney, they rebooted a couple of weeks after that, and then again following the leaked 47% video.
As a campaign, as a thing that is supposed to convince people this is a good leader and that you should vote for him, it has been abysmal. It has to be a product of the American system, because I couldn't imagine someone having so many major issues (that they have to "reboot" the campaign) and still being viable in Canada.
I guess I'd pose the question to you as well: how bad does it have to get before you don't vote for Romney?
You don't need to compare Romney/Ryan to Palin/Gingrich on the petty differences. They all belong to the same Ayn Rand Objectivist cult of worshiping greed and wealth and psychopath idealization. Fundamentally, they all want a fascist dictatorship functioning on a feudal model with corporations take the role of lords where all money flows to them and 99% of the population are tied to the land, have no rights or entitlements as members of the parasite class and where people who can't work and aren't rich are allowed to die.
Just because some wild eyed republicunt throws in the word Jesus instead of invisible hand or bible instead of the fountainhead doesn't change the fact that it's the same shit.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
You don't need to compare Romney/Ryan to Palin/Gingrich on the petty differences. They all belong to the same Ayn Rand Objectivist cult of worshiping greed and wealth and psychopath idealization. Fundamentally, they all want a fascist dictatorship functioning on a feudal model with corporations take the role of lords where all money flows to them and 99% of the population are tied to the land, have no rights or entitlements as members of the parasite class and where people who can't work and aren't rich are allowed to die.
Just because some wild eyed republicunt throws in the word Jesus instead of invisible hand or bible instead of the fountainhead doesn't change the fact that it's the same shit.
I wish you'd read Rand...
You know she was against Regan, yes?
Speaking of Reagan and his wonderful "Reagan Years", the tax rate on the rich went from 70% (1980) all the way down to under 30% (1988).
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html#_edn10
Originally posted by Oliver North
personally, no, I don't have a list of their policy opinions, but which do you think they differ on?1. War with Iran = Good
2. Poor people need to pay more tax and get less services = Good
3. The rich need lower tax rates = Good
4. Rape the environment [drill baby drill, etc] = GoodThere may be some nuance, sure, I'll give you that, but I don't think enough that would be really important.
I don't think even "nuance" is an appropriate label. I would go more with "significant differences and explanations and even at that it depends on the circumstances" is a better choice than "nuanced". But I'll talk about each one (I numbered your post).
1. I would point out that Romney is more like Obama when it comes to the Iran "situation":
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/romney-on-iran-share-same-red-line-as-obama/
There's a reason I call Obama and Romney as "Obamney".
2. 47% of America is not poor. It seems like you're unwittingly (actually, after reading more of your post, it looks like you are directly paraphrasing but it also looks like they are not your arguments/points: correct me if I'm wrong) paraphrasing libtarded talking points. "I am the 47%" and I assure you, I am not poor (I ain't rich, either). My honest opinion: some of that 47% should pay taxes and lose quite a bit of government benefits/programs/money. We cannot afford it. Cutting the entire military budget still would not shore up our budgeting problems. Obviously, entitlement programs need to be cut and taxes need to be raised. Raise it on the rich even more than everyone else, of course, but raise for everyone.
3. Obviously, I do not agree that the rich need lower taxes. However, I am willing to admit that we can rethink our tax system entirely and move the burden completely to an excise tax system which would greatly increase the tax burden on the rich (mwhahahahaha) but would completely eliminate income taxes.
4. That’s a definitive mischaracterization of Romney’s position. Again, I don’t think these are you actual points but just a paraphrase of libtard sentiments. Leaving the decision up to the states is hardly the same as “go apeshit and **** the environment”. For me, his idea of letting the states decide is much more in line with my perspective on the “question” of drilling: less big government. As far as the environment is concerned, he’s very much like Obama. So much so that the only major point in difference I could see was Romney wasn’t for mandating changes (like signing the Kyoto Convention) but supporting businesses in developing cleaner and renewable energy technologies.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Like, I'll even give it to Mitt, I think he is far more intelligent than he has to act to appeal to his base. I think the strategy is wrong though. he should do what the Democrats have realized: They don't have to appeal to the base, because they are in no risk of losing them.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I can only highlight other conversations I've had on this board, where people who are very much against many policies of Obama and actually support other candidates, but will still vote for Obama because he is the "only real choice" [sic] or whatever. Its where I ask "how many times do you have to vote for a Democrat before they do what you want?", which is basically me saying "you are an idiot for voting against your beliefs because you will never get what you want by supporting the status quo".
Originally posted by Oliver North
well, like, I'm not even saying Obama is a better candidate or has run a spectacular campaign.I guess, think of it like this: How many times has the Romney campaign decided it needs to "reboot" up until this point? They did it a couple of times in the primaries, the convention was supposed to be where you "met" Romney, they rebooted a couple of weeks after that, and then again following the leaked 47% video.
As a campaign, as a thing that is supposed to convince people this is a good leader and that you should vote for him, it has been abysmal. It has to be a product of the American system, because I couldn't imagine someone having so many major issues (that they have to "reboot" the campaign) and still being viable in Canada.
I guess I'd pose the question to you as well: how bad does it have to get before you don't vote for Romney?
I've only heard of a couple of reboots.
But, I ain't votin' for Romney. It can't get any worse because I decided about a year ago that I wasn't going to vote for Obamney. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think even "nuance" is an appropriate label. I would go more with "significant differences and explanations and even at that it depends on the circumstances" is a better choice than "nuanced". But I'll talk about each one (I numbered your post).1. I would point out that Romney is more like Obama when it comes to the Iran "situation":
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/romney-on-iran-share-same-red-line-as-obama/
There's a reason I call Obama and Romney as "Obamney".
2. 47% of America is not poor. It seems like you're unwittingly paraphrasing libtarded talking points. "I am the 47%" and I assure you, I am not poor (I ain't rich, either). My honest opinion: some of that 47% should pay taxes and lose quite a bit of government benefits/programs/money. We cannot afford it. Cutting the entire military budget still would not shore up our budgeting problems. Obviously, entitlement programs need to be cut and taxes need to be raised. Raise it on the rich even more than everyone else, of course, but raise for everyone.
3. Obviously, I do not agree that the rich need lower taxes. However, I am willing to admit that we can rethink our tax system entirely and move the burden completely to an excise tax system which would greatly increase the tax burden on the rich (mwhahahahaha) but would completely eliminate income taxes.
4. That’s a definitive mischaracterization of Romney’s position. Again, I don’t think these are you actual points but just a paraphrase of libtard sentiments. Leaving the decision up to the states is hardly the same as “go apeshit and **** the environment”. For me, his idea of letting the states decide is much more in line with my perspective on the “question” of drilling: less big government. As far as the environment is concerned, he’s very much like Obama. So much so that the only major point in difference I could see was Romney wasn’t for mandating changes (like signing the Kyoto Convention) but supporting businesses in developing cleaner and renewable energy technologies.
I don't mean this as a cheap political joke, but given the lack of specifics in the Romney campaign platform and his ability to take all positions on a single issue, I'd say there are certainly different ways to interpret his position.
Also, its not so much that his positions are bad, it is that he agrees with Palin/Bachman on pretty much all of them (and we were talking about Ryan and Gingrich, anyways)
Originally posted by Oliver North
Also, its not so much that his positions are bad, it is that he agrees with Palin/Bachman on pretty much all of them (and we were talking about Ryan and Gingrich, anyways)
FUUUUUUUUUUU!
You're right. I misread. Saw "Romney" in the first section I was reading in my own post. My bad.
Yes, I agree, Ryan and Gingrich are very difficult to distinguish from Palin/Bachman on those topics.
Originally posted by Oliver Northpractically speaking, i'd be a fool if i followed your advice. only when you invoke over-simplified dichotomies such as "voting for/against your beliefs" does it seem like a bad idea to factor a candidate's viability into your decision to vote.
I can only highlight other conversations I've had on this board, where people who are very much against many policies of Obama and actually support other candidates, but will still vote for Obama because he is the "only real choice" [sic] or whatever. Its where I ask "how many times do you have to vote for a Democrat before they do what you want?", which is basically me saying "you are an idiot for voting against your beliefs because you will never get what you want by supporting the status quo".
Originally posted by red g jacks
practically speaking, i'd be a fool if i followed your advice. only when you invoke over-simplified dichotomies such as "voting for/against your beliefs" does it seem like a bad idea to factor a candidate's viability into your decision to vote.
I find that logic to be entirely circular though:
Why don't you vote for a third party?
- They aren't viable
Why aren't third parties viable?
- People don't vote for them
Why don't you vote for a third party?
- They aren't viable
Why aren't third parties viable?
- People don't vote for them
Why don't you vote for a third party?
- They aren't viable
Why aren't third parties viable?
- People don't vote for them
Why don't you vote for a third party?
- They aren't viable
Why aren't third parties viable?
- People don't vote for them
...
and so forth
If democracy, to you, is about lesser evils and not getting what you want, sure, I can't tell you to follow my advice and you might be foolish to.
i can see the criticism that it's circular, but a problem with that argument is that it assumes that there is a collective decision being made by everyone who doesn't vote for a 3rd party. as if my voting for a 3rd party would change their viability; when we both know it wouldn't. now you can say that if everyone had that philosophy then things might change... but in the meantime, me voting that way is not a sound strategy for getting what i want, which almost certainly involves voting for someone who can win an election.
as for a non-circular reason for why these third party candidates aren't viable: pooling interests generally gains more votes than staying true to a set of ideals which most people don't share.
another thing is that 'getting what you want' actually has a spectrum to it, it's not a simple yes/no equation. so i think the relevant question is which vote will yield the highest percentage of 'things i want.'
A third challenger is and can be a viable thing. John Anderson did it in 1980 and Ross perot did it in 92.
The rules for the debates need to be changed. Any candidate on the ballot in say 30 or more states should be allowed to participate in the presidential debates.
That would certainly shake things up
Darth Jello tends to exaggerate and speak in hyperbole as a means of drawing attention to the fact that his beliefs are exaggerated and hyperbolic.
Really, aside from making a few thousand (because in all honesty that's about how many people have ever seriously followed Objectivism) anti-social people more anti-social and giving the world an example of how not to write a novel in the form of Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand accomplished nothing.
Even those politicians who are said to take cues from her or even claim to be disciples of hers are generally only partial believers and don't follow her philosophy to the extent that she hoped they would.
Originally posted by Omega VisionEven those politicians who are said to take cues from her or even claim to be disciples of hers are generally only partial believers and don't follow her philosophy to the extent that she hoped they would.
In the case of Paul Ryan I'd say that statement is incorrect.