# Bernie preaches about free stuff..



## TNHarley (Oct 15, 2015)

but doesn't donate anything to charity?
In fact when I did thishttp://www.bing.com/search?q=does%20bernie%20sanders%20donate%20money%20to%20the%20unfortunate%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=does%20bernie%20sanders%20donate%20money%20to%20the%20unfortunate%3F&sc=0-27&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=ECD6614E1AAC48F79A042A35D467D7A9
bernie sanders and charity - Bing
All I got was a way to donate to HIM and unrelated things.
How can someone preach about giving away all this stuff, when he HIMSELF doesn't do it? If he cant do it willingly, what gives him the right to want to FORCE everyone else?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

You misunderstand the basic premise.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> You misunderstand the basic premise.


 Which is?


----------



## Pogo (Oct 15, 2015)

Where did he say "free"?




TNHarley said:


> but doesn't donate anything to charity?
> In fact when I did thishttp://www.bing.com/search?q=does%20bernie%20sanders%20donate%20money%20to%20the%20unfortunate%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=does%20bernie%20sanders%20donate%20money%20to%20the%20unfortunate%3F&sc=0-27&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=ECD6614E1AAC48F79A042A35D467D7A9
> bernie sanders and charity - Bing
> All I got was a way to donate to HIM and unrelated things.
> How can someone preach about giving away all this stuff, when he HIMSELF doesn't do it? If he cant do it willingly, what gives him the right to want to FORCE everyone else?



Which candidate's website gives a rundown of their charitable contributions?


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 15, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Where did he say "free"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did he say free or discounted tuition?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Where did he say "free"?
> ...



He has stated he wants to eliminate tuition at all public colleges and universities.


----------



## Disir (Oct 15, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Where did he say "free"?
> ...


Bernie Sanders said: I pay for my program, by the way, through a tax on Wall Street speculation, which will not only make public colleges and universities tuition-free, it will substantially lower interest rates on college debt, a major crisis in this country.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

And since Wall Street speculation on subprime mortgage bundling is what caused the Recession of '08, I'm sure there will be some here who'll try to defend it...


----------



## Agit8r (Oct 15, 2015)

Or... you could vote for the party that wrote hundreds of billions of tax refunds into the tax code, and then bitches about people wanting free stuff


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> Or... you could vote for the party that wrote hundreds of billions of tax refunds into the tax code, and then bitches about people wanting free stuff



How is a refund free stuff?


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> but doesn't donate anything to charity?
> In fact when I did thishttp://www.bing.com/search?q=does%20bernie%20sanders%20donate%20money%20to%20the%20unfortunate%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=does%20bernie%20sanders%20donate%20money%20to%20the%20unfortunate%3F&sc=0-27&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=ECD6614E1AAC48F79A042A35D467D7A9
> bernie sanders and charity - Bing
> All I got was a way to donate to HIM and unrelated things.
> How can someone preach about giving away all this stuff, when he HIMSELF doesn't do it? If he cant do it willingly, what gives him the right to want to FORCE everyone else?



how many threads do we need on this subject, hon?

i'm sorry you think doing the right thing is about "free stuff".

me? I don't want to have to live behind barbed wire like anyone with money has to do in the banana republics.

you can't have the kind of disparity in wealth that we're having here. and it's a matter of good public policy to say everyone should have a leg up if they need it.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> And since Wall Street speculation on subprime mortgage bundling is what caused the Recession of '08, I'm sure there will be some here who'll try to defend it...


No prosecutions by Obama......its still going on.....


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 15, 2015)

jillian said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > but doesn't donate anything to charity?
> ...


 It is, isn't it? He said it plain as day.
I honestly don't have a problem with free education, but I still think he is a hypocrite. Most people that support that stuff is, it seems like.
Barbed wire? Banana Republics? That's a little far fetched isn't it?


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 15, 2015)

Manonthestreet said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > And since Wall Street speculation on subprime mortgage bundling is what caused the Recession of '08, I'm sure there will be some here who'll try to defend it...
> ...


 Funny he didn't do a damn thing about it, isn't it?


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



no. it really isn't about "free stuff". it's about doing the right thing at a core societal level. the whole "free stuff" thing is what you've been sold by people who have an interest in maintaining the disparity. me? I want everyone to be educated if they want to be. I want everyone to have health care. no one in the wealthiest country in the world should have to choose between eating and getting their medication. and no parent should have to deny an education to their child because they can't afford it.

in the old days, you could work your way through school. school is so expensive now that even if the low-wage jobs aren't taken by old people (courtesy of the economic crash of '08), it won't cover the cost of tuition.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 15, 2015)

jillian said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 No one is entitled to those things. That is a big problem with this world.
The earth owes you nothing
Our government owes you nothing
I owe you nothing
And it is free stuff. It isn't spun. It is directly from his mouth.
All it is is emotional.
Like I said, I really have no problem with it. And we would be a lot better off if people were educated at a higher level. You would have to be dumb to think otherwise.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 15, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Like I said, I really have no problem with it. And we would be a lot better off if people were educated at a higher level. You would have to be dumb to think other



Then uh.......... what was the point of this thread?

Actually you started out whining that you didn't find info on Sanders' charitable contributions on his website -- which wouldn't be there anyway since it's a political campaign site.  That never did get essplained.

Thread done vaporized itself.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 15, 2015)




----------



## TNHarley (Oct 16, 2015)

Pogo said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said, I really have no problem with it. And we would be a lot better off if people were educated at a higher level. You would have to be dumb to think other
> ...


 His hypocrisy, Pogo.
I posted search results...


----------



## Pogo (Oct 16, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Is that what that 89,247-character link was?  
I didn't click it.

I don't think you'd find my charitable contributions on an internet search either though.  Why would they be there?  How does a search (on Bing no less) prove a negative?

And not only did you use a cheap me-too search engine, you've got limiting search terms like "unfortunate" in there.  Looks like it's _engineered _to come up empty.  Now on a more honest Google search of simply "Sanders charitable contributions" the first link that shows up accounts some $8500, plus an honorarium and book royalties donated to charity last year.  Plus there was that drug guy recently, the one with the weird name who jacked up the price of AIDS medicine, whose contribution was rejected and sent off to another charity.  IIRC that was $2700.

Meanwhile we have other wags on this board whining that Sanders _isn't rich enough_ to run for POTUS.  Literally.

Besides which, personal charitable contributions are not analogous to institutional social programs.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 16, 2015)

Pogo said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 lol yes
But you aren't a public figure. At least, I don't think you are. lol
It is just the point that he cant willingly help the less fortunate but wants to force everyone else to do it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

Only the uninformed believe it's "free stuff."  It's not.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Only the uninformed believe it's "free stuff."  It's not.


 So the people will be paying for their education?


----------



## Pogo (Oct 16, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



I just told you, by doing a real search, and not one designed to find nothing, I found plenty of charitable contributions.

And the fact remains -- it's not an analogy anyway.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 16, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> but doesn't donate anything to charity?
> In fact when I did thishttp://www.bing.com/search?q=does%20bernie%20sanders%20donate%20money%20to%20the%20unfortunate%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=does%20bernie%20sanders%20donate%20money%20to%20the%20unfortunate%3F&sc=0-27&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=ECD6614E1AAC48F79A042A35D467D7A9
> bernie sanders and charity - Bing
> All I got was a way to donate to HIM and unrelated things.
> How can someone preach about giving away all this stuff, when he HIMSELF doesn't do it? If he cant do it willingly, what gives him the right to want to FORCE everyone else?


 
Welcome back, TN.
It as long been the leftist agenda to play Robin Hood ... taking from "the rich."
In Uncle Bernie's defense he has always been a loyal leftist and as a lifelong politician who has never had a real job, he has never amassed a real fortune. His net worth - at 74 - is only about $500,000.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 16, 2015)

Pogo said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 Will you show me?


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 16, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > but doesn't donate anything to charity?
> ...


 Thank you, sayit!


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 16, 2015)

Disir said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Interest on the loans isn't the problem ... college costs which have risen as fast as healthcare costs are the problem. It seems those who scream loudest about wealth inequality - leftist college profs - are eager to get their share of the pie.

Current interest rates on undergrad loans is only 4.29%.
So how much could the Bernie plan lower them?

As seen on the debate, he is playing to his crowd, half of which is 18-24 year olds. You know ... those who know little and have nothing but want the gov't to provide "free" stuff.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 16, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > but doesn't donate anything to charity?
> ...



See what I mean?  I toldja there were those who claim he's "not rich enough" to run for POTUS, and I wasn't even thinking of this guy.

What a weird place we've sunk to when we *require *our candidates to be millionaires...SMH


----------



## Pogo (Oct 16, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



It's in that WaPo link in post 20.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 16, 2015)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Who requires a person to be a millionaire to run for President.

My problem with someone like Bernie Sanders is he supports all sorts of handout programs.  Let him set the example.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 16, 2015)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


 I respect that guy for that, actually. I would rather have a common joe in the WH over anyone.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 16, 2015)

I seen that pogo. Thanks!


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 16, 2015)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Exactly where did I say Bernie isn't rich enough to be prez?
I did say, _in his defense_, that his lack of charitable giving may well be a function of his lifelong adherence to socialist principles and his lack of personal wealth.
It would be beneath one such as Bernie to benefit from capitalism.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 16, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Umm... read the very post I responded to above (Sayit) -- and I've seen this argument before on these same pages.




Conservative65 said:


> My problem with someone like Bernie Sanders is he supports all sorts of handout programs.  Let him set the example.



There's a record for that:

>> The battle over Northgate Apartments illustrates Sanders’s general approach to governing. In addressing this and many other issues, he encouraged grassroots organizing, adopted local laws to protect the vulnerable, challenged the city’s business power brokers, and worked collaboratively with other politicians to create a more livable city.

Now that Sanders is running for president, the eight years he spent as Burlington’s chief executive (1981–89) will be under close scrutiny. Although President Obama recently joked at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner that Sanders is a “pot-smoking socialist,” he was actually a hardworking, pragmatic, effective mayor who helped transform Vermont’s largest city (population: 38,000) into a thriving town.

Thanks to the enduring influence of the progressive climate that Sanders and his allies helped to create in Burlington, the city’s largest housing development is now resident-owned, its largest supermarket is a consumer-owned cooperative, one of its largest private employers is worker-owned, and most of its people-oriented waterfront is publicly owned. Its publicly owned utility, the Burlington Electric Department, recently announced that Burlington is the first American city of any decent size to run entirely on renewable electricity. << -- What Kind of Mayor was Bernie Sanders?​
There's your example.  That has nothing to do with what charitable contributions one makes though.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 16, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Why else would you be whining that he doesn't have enough money?
Do you have half a million?  I don't.  Nor do I expect to at age 74.  Wtf does that have to do with whether I can run for POTUS or not?

And as I indicated, you're not the first to parrot this line.  I'm just not sure where such oligarchophilia comes from.  But it's kinky.




SAYIT said:


> [I did say, _in his defense_, that his lack of charitable giving may well be a function of his lifelong adherence to socialist principles - it would be beneath him to benefit from capitalism - and his lack of wealth.



No such "lack of charitable giving" has been established.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 16, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



If anything it indicates he practices what he preaches about amassing personal wealth for the sole sake of amassing personal wealth.  The better question might be not why does Sanders have so little, but why does the average POTUS candidate have so _much_?  Or perhaps better phrased, why do we require candidates to be millionaires?

But I repeat myself.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 16, 2015)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Yanno Pogo, you consistently play the idiot.

My comment was a direct response to what was deemed his lack of charitable giving and I gave him a pass.

You managed to read into it something that just wasn't there and I certainly do not find him unfit because he isn't rich ... I find him unfit because he's an American socialist.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 16, 2015)

Pogo said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



And I find his lifelong adherence to his principles to be his most (perhaps only) impressive character trait. He has not only talked the socialist talk, he's walked it.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 16, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Ahem:


SAYIT said:


> as a lifelong politician who has never had a real job, he has never amassed a real fortune. His net worth - at 74 - is only about $500,000.







SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



"Give me forty acres and I'll turn this post around"?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 16, 2015)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



So where in that quote do I say or imply Uncle Bernie's wealth is or should be a barrier to his election?

Answer: No where.


----------



## I amso IR (Oct 16, 2015)

All right kiddes, all together now, Bernie, Bernie, he is our man, if he cannot do it, nobody can!. Bah, Humbug! As for "free Stuff", everyone loves free stuff. After all, it is free, free, free! Don't believe me? Ask your local politicians about free stuff. They love it. As for being responsible, we are well beyond that middle age thinking. It is now very well documented that "responsibility" was a middle aged condition which served no real purpose and was supplanted by way of, free stuff. An example would be the Oklahoma Land Rush. Go west young man, it is "free". No Viking tactics required, simply go, go, go! The Mormons went west because it was FREE! Why even the Bible states that, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be" what is that word, FREE. Free stuff is our inheritance, Our Freedom, our free stuff. What part of FREE don't you guys understand? And last but not least, I am FREE to start preparing my 2015 Income Tax statement as it is FREE to do so. FREE< FREE< FREE! This nation is built upon the principle of being FREE! Need I embelish the fact? And finally, again, Bah Humbug!


----------



## I amso IR (Oct 16, 2015)

Certainly, someone will reply, why, it is FREE to do so.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 16, 2015)

I amso IR said:


> All right kiddes, all together now, Bernie, Bernie, he is our man, if he cannot do it, nobody can!. Bah, Humbug! As for "free Stuff", everyone loves free stuff. After all, it is free, free, free! Don't believe me? Ask your local politicians about free stuff. They love it. As for being responsible, we are well beyond that middle age thinking. It is now very well documented that "responsibility" was a middle aged condition which served no real purpose and was supplanted by way of, free stuff. An example would be the Oklahoma Land Rush. Go west young man, it is "free". No Viking tactics required, simply go, go, go! The Mormons went west because it was FREE! Why even the Bible states that, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be" what is that word, FREE. Free stuff is our inheritance, Our Freedom, our free stuff. What part of FREE don't you guys understand? And last but not least, I am FREE to start preparing my 2015 Income Tax statement as it is FREE to do so. FREE< FREE< FREE! This nation is built upon the principle of being FREE! Need I embelish the fact? And finally, again, Bah Humbug!



Doesn't look like your meds are free.  

In several decades of voting at national, state and local levels, never once has "free stuff" entered my mind.  Ever.

Free strawman.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 16, 2015)

I think tax payer supported college is a investment into our own people. Instead of bringing over millions of h1b's to do the jobs...Why not our own people?

Of course, to you republicans our own people is somehow a boondogoo!!! 

Paving our roads = boondogoo

You people are a joke...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

It's still not "free stuff," but carry on.  The only "free stuff" is the entertainment y'all provide the rest of us.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 16, 2015)

Matthew said:


> I think tax payer supported college is a investment into our own people. Instead of bringing over millions of h1b's to do the jobs...Why not our own people?
> 
> Of course, to you republicans our own people is somehow a boondogoo!!!
> 
> ...



I choose to invest in my own people.  I call them my two daughters.  That's as far as the investing in that area goes.  If what you said it true, why don't the parents of those kids invest in their own or is it only a good investment for those the left despises?  

If someone isn't willing to invest in their own kids, why is it another person's place to be forced to do so?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> It's still not "free stuff," but carry on.  The only "free stuff" is the entertainment y'all provide the rest of us.



If one group of people, the leeches, are getting something for which another group, the personally responsible ones, are being forced to fund, they ones getting and not paying are getting free stuff.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > It's still not "free stuff," but carry on.  The only "free stuff" is the entertainment y'all provide the rest of us.
> ...



You mean farm subsidies.  I'm not sure whether Sanders has mentioned them, but I'll look into it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Only the uninformed believe it's "free stuff."  It's not.



If one group of people is getting something another group is funding and the receiving group gets it at no cost, how is that not free?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



So farmers don't provide something in return?  In fact, some of what they provide is purchased by food stamp recipients using something they don't fund and for which they have to do nothing to get.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 16, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> but doesn't donate anything to charity?
> In fact when I did thishttp://www.bing.com/search?q=does%20bernie%20sanders%20donate%20money%20to%20the%20unfortunate%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=does%20bernie%20sanders%20donate%20money%20to%20the%20unfortunate%3F&sc=0-27&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=ECD6614E1AAC48F79A042A35D467D7A9
> bernie sanders and charity - Bing
> All I got was a way to donate to HIM and unrelated things.
> How can someone preach about giving away all this stuff, when he HIMSELF doesn't do it? If he cant do it willingly, what gives him the right to want to FORCE everyone else?


The left do very little charity work or donating. Studies show as well as my own experience working for charity organizations. Need volunteers for an event in a small Bible Belt community? No problem. Same event in Los Angeles with 3 million people?  Forget it, few volunteers.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Farm subsidies are to compensate agribusinesses for _not_ producing, i.e., letting some or all of their acreage lie fallow.  This keeps prices of certain crops artificially inflated.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


It still involves the process of farming and whatever the price may be the food stamp leeches still get the product for nothing.

10%, 20%, 30% can lie fallow and the farmer is still doing more than the food stamp recipient is.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



It involves the process of _not_ farming. 



Conservative65 said:


> 10%, 20%, 30% can lie fallow and the farmer is still doing more than the food stamp recipient is.



You're right.  They're probably sitting in the middle of their 1,000 acres watching "Dancing with the Stars."


----------



## I amso IR (Oct 16, 2015)

With reference to post # 42 which I made earlier, my point is this. Most folks with a high school education or higher understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I recall back during Obama's first run, a news person was interviewing a Latino young woman who had stormed the border and had made it to California. He asked her a simple question, "why have you come to America"? Her response was, "America is free". Freedom had nothing to do with the response, just the fact that she truly expected America to be a free ride. I am assuming that most of us, with a bit of education, that the phrase, "America is free" does not mean what some folks take it to mean. Surely, free and freedom have two different meanings, however that thought does does not register with some folks. And an awful lot of them are citizens who fall into that class. And the sad thing is, there are learned people, who are born and bred citizens of this nation, who continue to feed these "ner do wells" that the true meaning of America is to do as you wish and you will be cared for. With out a class of people who can be told anything and they will believe it, those educated folk fostering that false idea will have no way to influence the remainder of the population, the working and the executive class. Bernie simply wants to enslave the producers to care for the non producers. And kudo's to you POGO, my meds are certainly not freebies but they are over priced. Why, in part to pay for the freebies going to the "free". Perhaps the word "free" should be stricken from our english speak. Perhaps " at no cost" which we all recognize for what it means, even those of lesser education understand, "it will or will not" cost you this much. Is the above statement to clarify my post # 42, one of satire, now usplained clearly enough? Then again, some splanations are never sufficent.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

I amso IR said:


> With reference to post # 42 which I made earlier, my point is this. Most folks with a high school education or higher understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I recall back during Obama's first run, a news person was interviewing a Latino young woman who had stormed the border and had made it to California. He asked her a simple question, "why have you come to America"? Her response was, "America is free". Freedom had nothing to do with the response, just the fact that she truly expected America to be a free ride.



You had to work really hard to misinterpret what she said.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



They're still farming whatever percentage is left.  Even your words indicate that.   You said that what subsidies do by paying not to farm is done to artificially drive up prices.  In order to drive up prices, something has to be farmed.  That means even if it's only 10% of their land, that's 10% more than the food stamp leeches have to do in order to buy the products farmers grow.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> They're still farming whatever percentage is left.



And working-class people (Walmart employees being the most highly-publicized example) who rely on SNAP benefits to make sure their kids eat work all the hours they're given.  

Who do you admire more - the small percentage of farmers who refuse "free stuff" or those who can't get enough of it?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > They're still farming whatever percentage is left.
> ...



Walmart, etc. employees aren't making sure their kids eat.  Since they use food stamps to do it, those of us paying the taxes that fund it are making sure their kids eat.  They can't even provide the most basic needs to their kids.  The rest of us who provide it to our own are forced to provide it to theirs, too.  

I won't ask who you admire more.  You hold leeches who get something for nothing on a much higher level than those who provide it to them.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Surveyed them yourself, did you?  Post your findings.

Again, which farmers do you admire - the ones who refuse subsidies or the takers?

How's the hedge fund business treating you these days?


----------



## I amso IR (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> > With reference to post # 42 which I made earlier, my point is this. Most folks with a high school education or higher understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I recall back during Obama's first run, a news person was interviewing a Latino young woman who had stormed the border and had made it to California. He asked her a simple question, "why have you come to America"? Her response was, "America is free". Freedom had nothing to do with the response, just the fact that she truly expected America to be a free ride.
> ...



I amso IR responds;  Not very hard as I was listening and heard what others said. Perhaps you viewed the same broadcast and had a different take, Either way, the same thought applies. She, does that bother you, she? She thought America was free to all poor and disheveled hand me downs which is far from the truth. The working class working while the ner do's, do not. It honestly is that simple. You refuse to accept that therefore you fit right in with taking what I have worked for. And yes, tho I am skilled laborer, a trade, it has provided nicely for my family and self.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

I amso IR said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > I amso IR said:
> ...


Unless you equate "freedom" with "free stuff," again, you're imputing to her words something it's likely she didn't intend.

Emma Lazarus's poem says:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."

There's nothing there about "free stuff."

When your ancestors came to this country, did they say "Yeah, we're going to America because we'll get free stuff"?  Or did they say "We're going to America so that we'll have the opportunity to live free of the poverty and oppression that weigh us down in the country where we were born"?

Seriously, does "freedom" mean "free stuff" to you?  That's just sad.


----------



## MarathonMike (Oct 17, 2015)

I just can't take this Sanders guy seriously. There is no free ride Bernie, get real. He should play the grumpy old man in bad sitcoms.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Don't have to. All I need to to is look at what YOU said about them using SNAP benefits.  If they are using them, they aren't making sure their kids eat, the taxpayers are making sure that happens.  Going out and buying it is the easy part especially when someone else is footing the bill.  

I admire any farmer.  They work very hard and grow things you eat that you would otherwise have to grow yourself.  Like I said before, even if they are only farming 50% of their land, that's 50% more work to do what they do than welfare leeches do to get a check.  

I won't ask who you admire.  I already know.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Don't have to. All I need to to is look at what YOU said about them using SNAP benefits.  If they are using them, they aren't making sure their kids eat, the taxpayers are making sure that happens.  Going out and buying it is the easy part especially when someone else is footing the bill.



Migod, a breakthrough!  You've finally realized that you're not only paying the Waltons' taxes directly - when they get a $6 billion a year tax break - but you're compensating their employees for what Sam's grandkids refuse to pay them.

I've been trying to get you to see that for over a week, and you finally got it - congratulations!  



Conservative65 said:


> I admire any farmer.  They work very hard and grow things you eat that you would otherwise have to grow yourself.



Especially the ones who game the system, right?  Take the government check and farm nothing in order to keep consumer prices artificially inflated.  Then hire illegals to harvest the crops on the land they're actually working.  Yes, I can see where that business model would appeal to you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't have to. All I need to to is look at what YOU said about them using SNAP benefits.  If they are using them, they aren't making sure their kids eat, the taxpayers are making sure that happens.  Going out and buying it is the easy part especially when someone else is footing the bill.
> ...



Are you saying those who don't farm have then prices of their goods inflated?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


You, the guy buying tomatoes in his local supermarket, are having your prices inflated, correct.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



That would be the case if I actually bought my tomatoes, and lots of other things, in the local supermarket.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Metaphors be with you...I figured even you would understand it.  Guess not.

So what do you do, order your tomatoes online?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Ever heard of a garden?  You probably haven't.  I didn't figure you would understand my response.  Guess not.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Ever heard of a garden?



The tomato metaphor was just that...a metaphor, but since you didn't get it, we'll stick to things you can hold in your hand.

Do you buy anything in retail stores?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Ever heard of a garden?
> ...



If you think my response dealt only with a specific object, you didn't get the response.  

No.  What next?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 19, 2015)

Do any of you Liberals even realize that Bernie Sander's very initials = BS


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > The tomato metaphor was just that...a metaphor, but since you didn't get it, we'll stick to things you can hold in your hand.
> ...



Really?  So you keep chickens and cows?  Slaughter them yourself?  Weave your own clothes out of the cotton you pick from your own fields?  How do you have time to post here?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Actually, I gather my own eggs from a friend's farm and the meat I consume is deer meat I got from hunting.  

One does not necessarily have to shop retail in order to buy clothes.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Salvation Army and swap meets?  Very resourceful!


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You sure do think you know a lot about for which you don't know shit.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


See question mark?  Question mark = question.  People scared of questions tend to lash out.  You did.

It's been a fun sidebar, but it's time to reiterate: It's not "free stuff."

You people would have a lot more credibility (i.e., more than -0-) if you'd knock off the baby-talk.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You asked a question that really isn't any of your damn business.  That's the problem with your type.  You think you need to know something that falls under the concept of fuck off.  I don't answer your question for that reason.  Your kind doesn't scare me one bit.  

It is free stuff when the one getting it isn't paying for it.  Perhaps you can tell me how much some food stamp recipient has paid in the taxes that fund the food stamps they receive.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

It's not "free stuff."  Baby-talk.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> It's not "free stuff."  Baby-talk.



If the person getting it isn't paying for it, it's free.  That's the definition of the word you dumb fucking piece of shit.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



I know for a fact of a single Mom with two kids who paid in $147.00 in federal income tax yet received a tax refund of $7,162.00 due to Earned Income Credit. That wasn't her money she received.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



(A) I question that figure
(B) I question the source (People routinely tell you how much their tax refund was?  Really?)
(C) What does "earned" mean on your planet?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Someone yesterday brought mentioned 4 kids and the family not paying income tax due to only making minimum wage.  I showed using the 1040 form how that family of 6 (4 kids + 2 adults) didn't pay any income taxes until the gross family income was $68,800 based solely on the 4 + 2).  I did the math showing them that meant both parents making over $16/hour for a 2080 hour work year.  I've yet to hear a response.  

Lefties constantly complain about businesses get tax breaks with little to no mention that to get a break you actually have to be paying them yet say nothing about someone getting back more than they paid in  due to the earned income credit.  They complain about how the rest of the taxpayers have to offset that tax break with no mention of how taxpayers have to fund the EIC.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



C)  It means you do something.  Tell me what a person qualifying for the EIC has done to earn what they get.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Research it. The reason I know is because I did her taxes.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Yes, it's hard to educate folks who fight against becoming educated.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Research it. The reason I know is because I did her taxes.



Fair enough.  So she works, and is therefore eligible for the EIC.  Conservative65 has been preaching that all poor people are "leeches who don't work and get something for nothing," so now he's switched to just being jealous of the working poor.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Tell me about it.  You people are still chanting "free stuff."  I'm inclined to let you just wallow in your ignorance.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Research it. The reason I know is because I did her taxes.
> ...



Problem is you don't have to work much to get it.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Nothing is free. Someone somewhere pays for everything. That's the thing you Lefties cannot grasp.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



They're not concerned with someone they think has too much money paying.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



If those getting aren't paying, how is it not free to them?


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 20, 2015)

#DemocratsWarOnDefinitions


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> #DemocratsWarOnDefinitions



I'm not a Democrat.  As I say, if you want to wallow in ignorance, who am I to dissuade you?  Carry on.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > #DemocratsWarOnDefinitions
> ...


 Like ignorant of the word free? LOL what a fuckin joke.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Like ignorant of the word free?



Can you retry that in English?


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Like ignorant of the word free?
> ...


 No need. You don't have anything of substance to say anyways.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


More baby-talk.  Excellent!  Keep up the good work!

BTW, I'm sure your candidate lists all his charitable contributions on his campaign site, and the next thing you'll do is show that, right?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 22, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You damn sure sound like a Democrat.  You say everything I hear Democrats saying.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 22, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


I can't even get you to accept that it's not "free stuff"; there's no way I can explain the nuances of my political philosophies.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 22, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



When someone doing the receiving doesn't pay for what they receive, it's free stuff to them.   I can't get you to understand that free means the one getting doesn't pay.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 22, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I understand that that's the only thing you see.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I see lots of things.  That someone getting something they didn't pay for as being free is something you don't see.  It seems you believe they actually did pay for it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> ...someone getting something they didn't pay for as being free...



Like a $6 billion "discount" on their taxes.

Then again, maybe I'm being too harsh with your dear friends the Waltons.  At least they pay _some_ taxes.  Some of their peers pay no taxes at all:

Forget Inversions, These 20 Huge, Profitable Companies Already Pay Zero Tax

Since some of them are liberals, I suspect now you'll change your tune...


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ...someone getting something they didn't pay for as being free...
> ...



These Socialist scum never waiver from the talking points!


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>



Forget Inversions, These 20 Huge, Profitable Companies Already Pay Zero Tax


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Want to check and see what PARTY they donate a majority of their money to?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


As I mentioned in Post 106.

If that's all you care about, then I guess you don't mind paying more taxes because they pay none.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



And behind door #1.....


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Confirmed, then.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



A rational Righty would be righteously angry that Apple was getting free stuff at his expense.  You, on the other hand, post pictures.  Post more.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



OK...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Excellent...post more.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 25, 2015)




----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>


Very convincing!  Post more...


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 25, 2015)




----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>


Now that's perfect. 

I noticed somebody bumped a bunch of three-year-old threads predicting Romney's "win," and even that was a conversation among peers.

Three years from now when this thread gets bumped, new posters can read it and say "Wait.  All one side can do is post dumbass Photoshops.  Who's got more credibility?"

So you keep posting all night.  I'm about to log out.  Yes, I can handle the truth...that you've got nothing.

Post more.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 25, 2015)

jillian said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



If you live at home, and you work a full time job, and go to school.... how can you not pay your way through college?

What heck are you blowing your money on?  Columbus State Community College, in-state tuition rates.... $3,400 a year.   Now what job are you working that you can't earn $3,400 a year?    If you work 10 hours a day, minimum wage, you would earn $3,400 a year.

Now of course, that's not enough because of TAXES, which are so high because scummy left-wingers are taxing us to death to pay for their 'free' programs.

EVEN SO....  if you worked a massive 12 hours a week, you should still make more than enough to pay for school.

"well I don't want to live at home"... . that's fine.  Do whatever you want.  But why should I pay for it, because you don't want to live wisely?

"Well I want to join all the expensive student activities".   Fine.  Why should I pay for it?

"well I want to go to an expensive out of state college that ranks higher on the party list".... fine.  Why should I pay for it?

This left-wing bull crap, about "no one should have to choose to get an education for their kids or not" is just garbage.

There are millions of ways to get free, or super low cost education.   Millions.    We have grants and scholarships out the wazoo, and all you have to do is apply for them, and have the grades.

If you don't have the grades, why would we pay to have someone go to college, when they are not likely to pass anyway?

The highest drop out rate is those people who go to college on pell grants.   What's the point?    Why are we even funding that?

Even you left-wing idiots, should be asking the question.... you tax us, and spend $30 Billion dollars a year, and the majority goes to students who drop out.     And you want to pay for the entire thing free?   How is that going to benefit anyone?  It doesn't even benefit the students on the pell grants.    Congrats, you failed.

Are they better off?    No.   Are we better off?  No.   Is society better off?  No.    So we're all worse off, all of us, even the people you claim to be supporting.   Those people could have been moving on with their lives, instead of wasting their time, going to a college they had no chance of passing.

Oh, but no no, we need to make it free.  That will solve everything.   Except that with more and more money sucked out of the economy, there will be fewer jobs.   But you people never care about that anyway.

Then we can end up like the UK, and when the money runs out.....







Brilliant move.   That worked so well... let's do the same thing here.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



How many MILLIONS of individuals don't pay income taxes.  I guess you don't mind paying more so they can get handouts from programs they don't fund.


----------



## jillian (Oct 25, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



1. i would never make my son live home for college. part of growing up is the experience of living at school. it was one of the best and most important things i ever did.
2. it is very difficult to get those entry level jobs because people who can work all day get them. no one wants to work around a college student's schedule, which, if the student is serious, is going to be very full.
3. a minimum wage, part time job does not pay for school.
4, you don't care about spending money... it's been shoveled into wars and tax relief for corporations if you cared about money 70 million wouldn't have been spent on investigating a blue dress or 20 million on something that is a contrived political hack job.

the UK mostly does just fine. thanks....it just gets screwed up when righties take over.

every other civilized nation provides health care and an education. it's only rightwingnut idiots who think those things have no value... 

because jesus.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> How many MILLIONS of individuals don't pay income taxes.



And he cuts and pastes this into yet another post.

You can stop obsessing about that now.  You and Cecelie (and it looks as if Vigilante will join you - share the load) will be knocking on doors in working class neighborhoods demanding that families turn over the kids' piggy banks to make up the shortfall from those corporations that pay no taxes.

Since you'll be volunteers, you won't need to pay yourselves for the time (but since you'll be in charge, you can at least buy lunch for the other two), but you'll all need decent walking shoes (or were you planning on driving from door to door?  Who pays for gas?).

Work up an Excel sheet showing how many working-class homes you'd have to extract how many dollars from in order to compensate for just one of those corporations.

Or just cut and paste your little speech again and again and again and...


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > How many MILLIONS of individuals don't pay income taxes.
> ...



And you cut and paste the "corporations that don't pay taxes" and believe that's perfectly OK.  

Yet you want the government to go after corporations while letting the individuals get a free ride.

You want to keep saying you're not a Democrat but you keep posting what those who call themselves Democrats post.  You're either a liar or the dumbest fucking son of a bitch around.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Conservative65 said:
			
		

> And you cut and paste the "corporations that don't pay taxes" and believe that's perfectly OK.



When you acknowledge it as a reality and either admit that you don't care that you're paying a higher proportion of taxes because billion-dollar entities are paying less or that it's an outrage and you're going to do something about it, I'll stop.



			
				Conservative65 said:
			
		

> Yet you want the government to go after corporations while letting the individuals get a free ride.



Which is more cost effective - you confiscating poor kids' piggy banks or laws that close offshore loopholes and require corporations to pay the same percentage of their income that you do?  Still waiting for that Excel sheet showing your method is better, which you obviously can't produce.

Seriously, convince me that it makes more sense to squeeze a few bucks out of a few million working-class families than it does to pass a law saying "Okay, Apple, pony up!"

You can't.  So you'll just keep repeating yourself _ad infinitum, ad nauseam_.  You need some new material.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 26, 2015)

jillian said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



1.   AGAIN.... That's fine!  Pay for him to live at college.  Why should *I* be forced to pay for your son to live at a college, simply because you are stuck up?

You can do anything you want buddy... *YOU PAY FOR IT*.

2.  I worked TWO jobs when I was in college.    In fact, my company right now has THREE interns, that are paid WELL ABOVE minimum wage, and we work around their scheduled constantly.  

Walmart has tuition reimbursement, and they work around schedule ALL THE TIME.  I know someone who did it!    You are so full of crap. You just make up ANYTHING to support your BS position.

3.  I just gave you the tuition fees.   And I assume you can do math, so I don't have to explain to you how much minimum wage verses a part time shift.   How does it not cover it?

4.   The UK does not do fine.  "Yeah they do fine, that's why people are rioting in the streets, and they are cutting funding year over year."

They run out of money, and you think "it's the righties!".   What moron.

Maybe you can't do math.   When you run out of money, it's not "righties".....  it's called math.  The amount of money you have to spend, is less than the amount required for your 'free' education. 

And quite frankly, all the "free" health care around the world, is neither free, nor good.   But if you can't grasp the fact the UK doesn't have un-ending piles of money for education, then clearly you are too incompetent to know anything about 'free' health care either.

See, this is why socialism is tried over and over, even though 100% of the time it fails.    No matter what happens, you don't bother with "Oh that's right, in order to buy something, you have to have the money for it".... no no.... it's "the righties!"   Those darn righties.   Math wouldn't be a problem if not for those darn calculators and the right-wingers that use them..... darn math... using.... conservative....   righties!

It's amazing I keep forgetting I'm talking left-wingers, where 1 + 1 is 11.   "See?   Two 1s by each other is 11.    That's the left wing math.   We can afford anything with our math."


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Why should *I* be forced to pay for your son to live at a college?



You wouldn't be.  Try to pay attention.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 26, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Where did he say "free"?
> ...



He has said free but paid for by taxes on everyone including higher taxes on the wealthy.  Actually, I like the idea, and it could be very beneficial to everyone involved including American business, but the way our educational system stands now, it would be a waste of money  in the long run.  Without addressing the problems with the system as it is now, just allowing kids to go to college for free would do little other than to allow many kids to go to school to party.  First of all we need to understand that many jobs do not require a four year degree but do require specialized training that cannot be attained through normal colleges and universities.  Until we have a system of apprenticeships as well as specialized training schools for the many jobs that do not require a four year degree, we would be wasting our time.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Again, tuition at state universities would be paid for by a small fee on hedge-fund transactions.  Based on some of the responses in this thread, some people don't even know what a hedge fund is.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 26, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Universal healthcare works very well in almost every country where it is available.  You have been brainwashed into believing otherwise.  Hybrid systems that allow for some private care seem to work the best as they guarantee good quality care for everyone and even better care for those who choose to pay extra.  Now I'm sure you are going to come back and tell me just how bad all that socialized healthcare is in countries that you have never been to, but you will be wrong again.  See, there are two specific things to look at, and that is cost and outcome.  The overall outcome of people's health in the US is no better than any country with socialized healthcare, and in many cases the US is worse.  That is a fact.  Sure you may find one treatment that is slightly better in the US than in GB or Germany, but you will find the opposite true for other types of care.  When you look at all of it, the best you could come to as a conclusion is that it is a wash, except for the other fact, and that other fact is that we in the US pay double what almost every other country pays for healthcare.  Why is it we want to pay double what everyone else in the world pays for the same product?  That's just stupid.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 26, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Agreed.  I'm a big fan of apprenticeships.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tell me.....  do you take the minimum deduction when you file your taxes?  Or pay the full amount, without any deductions?    Because by your logic, I'm paying a higher amount of taxes because of *YOU*.

Here's the problem with you left wingers.   You expect other people, to act completely differently than you yourself act.    All of you lefties, take as many deductions as you possibly can.   Even Warren Buffet, during a share holders meeting explained that Berkshire Hathaway, was buying up specific percentages of companies they invested in, specifically to avoid taxes.

The rich in Hollywood do the same thing.  The rich in Washington DC do the same thing.   Everyone does the same thing.

If someone proposes getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction, you people on the left scream.

Why?  You don't want to pay taxes.   But you hypocritically expect those who already pay more taxes than any of you ever have, to not use deductions?

Why do you expect others, to react to taxation differently than YOU do?

Well, get a clue stupid.   They are not.  They never will.   As long as we live in a free society, where everyone has a vote, that includes the rich, and they are not going to pay ever growing amounts of tax.

And if you succeed in forcing them too, they'll leave.   Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, France, Greece, the list of places that tried to jack up taxes on the rich, only to have them live the country grows every year.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 26, 2015)

Pogo said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Great!  Then you should be against raising the minimum wage.   Why do you think there are fewer and fewer apprenticeships today?

I worked at a Cadillac dealership.   They no longer have apprenticeship positions at all.    Why?  Too expensive. 

Do you understand what an apprenticeship is?   It's when you pay an unskilled person, to break stuff.... and then pay an experienced person to fix what the unskilled person breaks.

Let me ask you....  if you hired someone to redo your drive way, and he said, 
"yeah, I'll do it... but I'm also training this guy, and you'll need to pay him to do it as well.... and it will take twice a long to do, because he's learning."

Are you going to pay more?

A business may pay more, if only a little, for the long term gain of a skilled employee.

An apprenticeship program is almost always a money losing exercise.    The business can afford to eat that cost, if it is small enough.

Additionally, people today have a tendency to leave.   The company loses money training someone, and then they get trained and get a job somewhere else.

Again, that risk would be worth it, if the cost was low enough.

But on top of this, you jack up the minimum wage, and companies like the Caddilac dealership says... enough.  We don't train anymore anymore.  We hire only experienced mechanics.

That's great for the experienced mechanics.... but not so great for new workers who need skills.

So....  shall we cut the minimum wage?  Or do you really not support apprenticeship programs like you claim?


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Why should *I* be forced to pay for your son to live at a college?
> ...



Oh but I am.   I can see my pay stub.  I can see where my taxes go.

And who do you propose pay for it?  My employer?  Where do you think he's going to get the money from?   Lower wages for people like me?   Lower benefits?

The universal myth of leftists, is that "someone else will pay for all my stuff".  Well you are wrong.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



You can see them going.  Do you actually know what they're going for?

More to the point, you do know it's not November, 2016 yet, right?  Can you tell the class the difference between an actuality and a proposal, or are you just here to rant?



Andylusion said:


> And who do you propose pay for it?



The information is in the OP.  Read and learn.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 27, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You people on the left keep 'saying' that socialized care works great in every country, but then when I look it up, it's never as great as you claim it is.

Yeah, a hybrid system is better than a completely socialized system.   That's no surprise to us on the right.   The more socialized it is, the worse it is.  The more capitalist it is, the better it is.   Logically, if it is a hybrid, it will be better than a pure socialized system.

The US is still better than any completely socialized system I've ever looked at.   Is it getting worse?  Yes.  And the US health care is becoming more and more socialized.

Is their health care cheaper?   In some ways...  The quality of the care is lower, and lower care, results in a lower price.   At the same time, I keep looking at the costs, and I don't see it being cheaper.

I remember reading one comparison with UKs National Health Service.   Oh yes, NHS is far cheaper than our system.   Is it?    Only if you exclusively look at NHS taxes.   Problem is, NHS isn't funded by the National Insurance tax.   Not at all.  90% plus, of the NHS budget comes from the General revenue.

Why do you think UK wages are on average lower than US wages?   Because employer side taxes are higher.   Where do you think the money comes from to pay those taxes?   From the employee in the form of lower wages.

Why do you think tax rates are higher in the UK?   So not only do they earn less to begin with, but they get to keep less of it.

*The effective marginal tax rate in the UK is almost 10% higher than that of the US.   Let me ask you which is cheaper.*

I make $20,000 a year, and my monthly health insurance premium is $76 a month.

10% of my income is $2,000 a year.    Insurance is $912 a year.   Which is cheaper according to math, instead of your opinion?

Maybe that's just me.   Let's take the average US income $50,500, and the average insurance premium of $235.

10% of the average wage is $5,050 a year, and average insurance is $2,820.  Which is cheaper according to math, instead of your opinion?

Paying 10% more in taxes, is vastly more expensive than our current system, no matter what other stats you come up with.

Oh, and before you bring it up, all those fees and additional costs here in the US... they all exist in the UK too.   Fee for hospital stays, fees for various treatments.   Fees for using a hospital telephone.   Did you know that UK hospitals charge patients, and make a profit off of using the telephone?

You pass out, wake up at the hospital, and don't have your cell phone, sure you can call your wife... for a fee....  don't worry, we'll just add that to your hospital fees.

So this claim that it's so much cheaper.... I've been to the UK, and I have friends that live there now.... not seeing this "so much cheaper" system.

And the quality of care?

Number of patients waiting 36 weeks for NHS treatment triples - BBC News

Yeah, maybe.... if you live long enough to get it.  Funny how when I look up medical tourism statistics, I always see the US on the list somewhere.... and that's to be expected.  In a free-market competitive system, I would expect some Americans to go shopping in the market for a better deal.

But how do you explain Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, Japan, and all the other countries with "free" high quality health care?     Why does India get more visitors from Canada and the UK for health care, than the US.... when as you claim they get free government paid for care, that is just as good as the US?

Why is Japan the biggest source of medical tourism for Korea, if their government care is so great?

Maybe all your crap is wrong?   Just a thought.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 27, 2015)




----------



## Andylusion (Oct 27, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Yes.  I can see where they are going.   The Federal Budget, is easily found.  The State budget is easily found.  The local budget is easily found.

There is nothing super difficult about all of this.

The amount of money used for things that actually benefit average working people, is very small.

The vast vast majority of taxes go to pay for health care and education, and other welfare entitlements.

So yes, dude... yes.   Take the time to compare your pay stub, to Fed, State, and local budgets, and you can easily figure out where your money is going.   This doesn't require a Ph.D.   It barely requires a calculator.

Yes, I read the claim.... and the claim is garbage.   You can claim you'll get the rich to pay for stuff, but the fact is, that has never happened in the last 30 years.   All taxes supposedly 'target the rich" end up being paid for by the poor.   Almost no exception.


----------



## jillian (Oct 27, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



we don't have socialized medicine except at the V.A. level and other than the glitches that occurred after bush privatized walter reed, which seem to be relatively under control now, most service members are very satisfied with their health care. the rest of us have HEALTH INSURANCE... which only enriches the insurance industry. or do you think it benefitted us when they didn't insure people because of pre-existing conditions but dumped you from your existing coverage when you got sick?

so your entire rant about waiting periods in britain are meaningless.... since... again... we don't have socialized medicine. now, also, people with money still get private health care even in countries where there is socialized medicine. now ask those people who do wait whether they'd prefer waiting or not having any medical care.

you people are so silly... everyone i know who lives with a socialized system of medicine is pretty happy about it. but that's not even what most people on the left want anyway... a single payor system where private doctors are paid by the government but not working FOR the government... kind of like the medicaid system works.  

what isn't good is the system we have where we have amazing medical care but access is not available to everyone. we are the only civilized country in the world that does what we do and it costs more and gets less than anywhere else.

and that's just a crime. but wingers don't like to solve problems. they just like to rant because it benefits them politically with the wacky base.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 27, 2015)

jillian said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



When subsidies funded by someone other than the person receiving them in order to be able to purchased healthcare INSURANCE, it's socialized.  

When someone uses MEDICAID, a healthcare INSURANCE funded by others, it's socialized.

Access is available to everyone. You're equating access and ability to pay.  If someone can't afford to pay, write a check on their behalf.  That means if you claim someone didn't have access because they couldn't and you, someone that believes the person should have it doesn't pay for them yourself, you've denied them access.  YOU say they have a right to it but YOU won't fund it for them yourself.  

Lefties answer to solving anything they see as a problem is to let the government handle it and that involves someone else getting stuck with the bill while those benefiting from whatever it is not contributing to the cause.  Food stamps is a prime example.  If you know of someone that doesn't have money to buy food, buy it for them.  I'll do the same in situations where I determine there is a need.  What I won't do is determine on your behalf when one occurs but you can't say the same thing.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 27, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Yes, let's put an end to food stamps and send everyone who needs them over to your house so you can feed them.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 27, 2015)

jillian said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



The amazing medical care you talk about in the US does not lead to any real benefits.  We do not have a longer life expectancy, nor do those who are sick have better outcomes than in other countries with universal care, but at least we can brag about how much we spend on healthcare, because it's a Hell of a lot more than anywhere else in the world.  With what we pay for healthcare, our average life expectancy should be 100 years.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 28, 2015)

jillian said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



So happy that they are willing to pay money for health care in another country?

If everyone was so happy, then Canada wouldn't have a company called Timely Medical which specializes in helping Canadians escape their "happy health care system".

Timely Medical Alternatives | Timely Surgery at Affordable Prices

After all, their system is 'free', so how could they possibly be willing to pay thousands of dollars to go elsewhere for care?

Medicare is socialized.   Health insurance, with it's millions of government regulations and laws, is heavily socialized.   The VA is socialized, and the hundreds of government funded clinics and hospitals are all socialized.   Medicaid is also socialized.

And the VA system had problems long before Walter Reed, and since.

Some Veterans' Hospitals in Shocking Shape

This article came out in 2014, and ABC had an undercover report exposing the incompetence at VA hospitals back then.  You can't blame that on Bush, as you always do with or without justification.

Now read what they found last year:

Veterans who responded to a survey by the American Legion in 2003 said it took an average of seven months to get a first appointment at a VA hospital. In some hospitals, patients have waited as long as two years.

In 1999, Jack Christensen, a former army sergeant who served in the Korean War, was admitted to the VA hospital in Temple, Texas, with pneumonia, and ended up staying three years.

Christensen's wife, Pat, says the attitude of some of the practical nurses was shocking. Some of the patients were forced to beg for food and water, she says. Instead of helping her husband go to the bathroom, she said, "they would put a towel under his hips and tell him to use the towel."​
This is a system the majority think is great?  Begging for food?   Being treated like a dog?  Waiting 7 months, to 2 years?

Every vet I meet, says the last place they would go, is a VA hospital.    My whole family is military, and extended family is military, and their friends are military.   I have yet to meet one person, just one out of dozens, that says they would go to a VA hospital if there was any other choice.    Not ONE.

And the experience these people above are having, mirrors the experience that other people in most socialized systems have.

Including here in the.  Contrary to your ignorant claim, we have a massive network of government paid for clinics.   The reason the left pretends they don't exist, is because they suck.  If everyone went to these socialized gov-care clinics, the movement to socialized care would be dead.

In 2008, worker for the DNC convention got ill, and wrote a blog post called Healthcare: A Tale of Two ERs.   I have a screen shot of the blog here.




 
The blog post was removed, because I pointed out that it proved how bad socialized care was.

The worker was sent by the DNC contacts to a Denver publicly funded clinic.    The place was a wreck, the service was terrible, the staff treated them like crap, the AC didn't work, and it was muggy inside.  The place was a nightmare.   Exactly the way the ABC story describes the VA hospital experience as reported by veterans.

She ended up walking out after several hours without seeing anyone.   She asked for a private clinic, they saw her right away, got her a prescription, people were kind and friendly, the place was clean and in working order.  They even found out she was not from Denver and had a map printed out with clear directions on how to get to the nearest pharmacy.  

But... she had to pay for it.    Capitalism.   The other place.... that was socialism.

Of course, being that she was a mindless democrat, despite all that happened to her, and the horrible experience she went through at the socialized clinic... she said "if only republicans would allow it, we could have good socialized care". 

And I expect nothing more thoughtful in your response either.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 28, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Funny, we pretty much did that.   It was the welfare reform the republicans pushed through in 1996.  Interestingly, after kicking millions off food stamps... they didn't come over to your house... they just got a job, and started contributing to society, instead of sucking the blood out of it.

So, I'm for that plan.  Let's do it again.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 28, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Depends on the job they got whether they actually contributed to society.  If they didn't make much, they still didn't contribute to the income tax pot.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 28, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



That involves someone else determining whether their need is legitimate on my behalf.  Send them over.  If I see that their need is a legitimate one based on MY standards, I'll help.  If I don't, too bad.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

The really amusing part of this thread is that everyone posting here is using *social* media (same Latin root word) to access *free stuff* (i.e., posting on a message board without paying for it).

Now the Usual Suspects will come back with "No it isn't, because Reasons!"


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 28, 2015)

Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump. Can't blame them really. There is nothing worth comment coming from any of the Democrat candidates, just the same old tired and worn rhetoric from all the past Democrat debates in history - more taxes and more freebies. DULL!!


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump.



Will Carson and Trump actually be there?  Earlier Trump said he'd be sitting this one out because he didn't like the moderators' questions last time, and Carson was reportedly taking time off to sell books.



the_human_being said:


> There is nothing worth comment coming from any of the Democrat candidates, just the same old tired and worn rhetoric from all the past Democrat debates in history - more taxes and more freebies. DULL!!



Yeah, issues can be dull if you're expecting name-calling and mud-slinging.  Maybe you can watch reruns of _Survivor_ or something.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 28, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> The really amusing part of this thread is that everyone posting here is using *social* media (same Latin root word) to access *free stuff* (i.e., posting on a message board without paying for it).
> 
> Now the Usual Suspects will come back with "No it isn't, because Reasons!"


 You are equating society with an economic theory? LMAO


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > The really amusing part of this thread is that everyone posting here is using *social* media (same Latin root word) to access *free stuff* (i.e., posting on a message board without paying for it).
> ...



No, I'm discussing word origins.  "Society" is another word derived from the same Latin root as "socialism."  Care to try for a third?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 28, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump.
> ...



Well, I'm sure you will be all ears tonight with the Repub debate and back on here picking them apart right after. I don't fault you though since all Bernie wants to do is raise taxes.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Nah, I'm more interested in addressing their proposed "policies"  than watching a "reality" show.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 28, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Don't come on here asking "link", "link" link" if you're not going to watch it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Did I do that for any of the previous debates?  No, I did not.

If I want information, I'll find a transcript and link you people to it, since so many of you seem to hear what you want to hear, not what's actually said.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 28, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I thought I already told you to go ahead and vote Democrat that we Repubs don't want you.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


No, you told that to someone else.  You need to keep your Enemies List straight.

Anyway, I will find a transcript tomorrow and link y'all to it for when one side starts picking the debate apart and the other resorts to its YouTube skillz.

You can thank me later.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 28, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Be sure and hold your breath.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



So you're saying "We don't need no stinkin' facts about the debate or anything else and fuck you for attempting to provide them"?  Yeah, I figured that out the first day here.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 28, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



No. I'm saying I don't need you to tell me anything at all. I will watch the debate myself and hear exactly what is said when it is said.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


And if you try to spin it, I'll be able to consult the transcript and supply the Dramamine.  Fair enough.


----------



## Londoner (Oct 28, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump. Can't blame them really. There is nothing worth comment coming from any of the Democrat candidates, just the same old tired and worn rhetoric from all the past Democrat debates in history - more taxes and more freebies. DULL!!



Both parties have their tired theories.

*Republican:* tax cuts, deregulation, and laws that make it easier for private wealth to buy politicians.

*Democrat:*: raise taxes on the 1% whose 15% capital gains tax is lower than a school teacher's income tax. Regulation of business so it's harder for say cable companies to form anti-trust alliances and dived the nation into fixed no-compete zones so that they can raise prices and reduces services without losing customers. 

The Republican base is to be pitied for they only have talk radio, Fox and the rightwing press to rely upon for information - so they don't know the difference between government spending for the interstate & satellite system versus spending for Johnson era welfare to the terminally poor. The first form of spending is craved and exploited by profits makers (and is an investment. Yes, business loves government help. Most major sectors have made a living off government subsidies and bailout protection - but Republican news sources never - and I mean never - report it).

The OP is likely young. He doesn't know that the corporations who rule his blessed free market have set-up s lobbying empire in D.C. - where they suck the taxpayer dry with subsidies and bailouts. The oil companies which funded Reagan and still fund Limbaugh get massive subsidies, protectionism and military support from Uncle Sucker. It's a fucking joke. There is no free market; there are only wealthy corporations and their government puppets. The socialist boogie man is a strategic distraction for low-information morons who have had very little post high school education. 

Your last president gave Eli Lilly a no bid contract to charge seniors above market rates for Medicare drug purchases. Reagan was even worse when it came to sucking the taxpayer dry with his behind the scenes handouts to corporations. The OP knows none of this (but he votes)

(God help us)


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 28, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



What a crazy way of thinking about society.

So what you are telling me is that a person could make millions of dollars worth of product, build automobiles, or medications, or a perfect example, farm food.... and in your world, unless they are paying income tax, they are not contributing to society?

So when I was working as a courier, delivering medication and medical equipment, and other packages and parcels all over the state of Ohio, but not earning enough to pay income tax.... that was not a benefit to society?

See this is left-wing logic. Whether you are left-wing or not, what you just said was left-wing thinking.

Unless someone gives money to the government, they are not a benefit to society.  Unless they pay for our social programs, they are not a benefit.

No, that is wrong.  All work that provides a benefit, is a benefit to society as a whole.   Whether it is working at Wendy's for minimum wage, or running a multinational company... both benefit society, whether they pay tax or not.  

So like I said, everyone got off welfare and got a job, went from being a boat anchor to a benefit to society.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 28, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> The really amusing part of this thread is that everyone posting here is using *social* media (same Latin root word) to access *free stuff* (i.e., posting on a message board without paying for it).
> 
> Now the Usual Suspects will come back with "No it isn't, because Reasons!"



Yeah it is.   By choice, not force.

I have no problem whatsoever, with people offering free stuff by choice.  My podcast for example, is completely free.  But I made the choice to allow it to be free.

The people that created this forum, could have required a subscription fee, but they made the choice not to.

I'm all for 'choice'.    Welfare is not choice.  If I don't pay the taxes you give out for your 'social' programs, what happens to me?  I got to prison.  Men with guns show up, and I either go to prison, or I get shot.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> If I don't pay the taxes you give out for your 'social' programs, what happens to me?  I got to prison.  Men with guns show up, and I either go to prison, or I get shot.



Can you provide some data to support this assertion, or are you the reincarnation of Al Capone?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 28, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Your problem is that unless you actually watch it yourself, what the candidates actually say can easily be taken out of context.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 28, 2015)

Londoner said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump. Can't blame them really. There is nothing worth comment coming from any of the Democrat candidates, just the same old tired and worn rhetoric from all the past Democrat debates in history - more taxes and more freebies. DULL!!
> ...



The problem with you is that you are absolutely correct. Shame on you!!


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 28, 2015)

Londoner said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the Liberals will tune in tonight to view the Republican Debate. Following the debate, they will jump onto USMB and pick apart all the Republican candidates, especially Carson and Trump. Can't blame them really. There is nothing worth comment coming from any of the Democrat candidates, just the same old tired and worn rhetoric from all the past Democrat debates in history - more taxes and more freebies. DULL!!
> ...



The sad part is, you don't even understand the Republican position.

Tax cuts take away the reason to buy politicians.    When you jack up taxes, you give the elite the power they need to engage in corruption.

Same with regulation.   If you deregulate the industry, what reason would corporations have to buy off politicians and change the regulations?     Politicians know this, that is exactly why they convince the mindless lemmings to support more and more regulations, so they can then sell those exemptions and modifications to the highest bidder.

We are against those things, because they create corruption.   What you are by implication in favor of, is what creates the corruption.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 28, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Well, it must also be the Democrat position as well, would you not be forced to agree?


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 28, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...



Well, no.  Democrats support more regulations, and more taxes, and more corruption.  When Al Gore was asking companies for money, with veiled threats.... what threat do you think he implied?   More taxes and more regulation.   It's the defacto left-wing position.

Al Gore, and all the left wing, know the ignorant supporters will back them if they call for more of either, and that's how they extort money.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 29, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



That's the criteria used to determine whether or not a high income person is paying their fair share.  

Left-wing thinking is that it's OK if they don't pay income taxes because they should be paid more and they pay "other" taxes. Left wing thinking is that those on the lower end benefit those on the upper end not society.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 29, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> That's the criteria used to determine whether or not a high income person is paying their fair share.
> 
> Left-wing thinking is that it's OK if they don't pay income taxes because they should be paid more and they pay "other" taxes. Left wing thinking is that those on the lower end benefit those on the upper end not society.



Semi-coherent and riddled with inaccuracies.  Can you show (using facts) that left wing = poor?  We both know you can't, but let me raise the question anyway.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 29, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > That's the criteria used to determine whether or not a high income person is paying their fair share.
> ...



I didn't say left wing = poor.  Perhaps you should learn to read for comprehension for incorrectly claiming someone said what you claim they said.

I said left wing THINKING believes it's OK for poor people to not pay income taxes and they justify it by saying they pay other taxes.  The left wing also thinks that by paying someone more, it means they will automatically pay income taxes.  When their argument about income taxes made toward those opposing the $15/hour minimum wage, as just an example, is pay them more and they'll pay income taxes, their THINKING is what I said.  

Show me where I said left wing = poor.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 29, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



So you claim that the multiplicity of posts you've strewn all over the board about "I'm not paying for _your_ stuff" was just generic?  I may have missed your posting them in reply to a right-leaning or moderate poster.  Perhaps you can point some of those out.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 29, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I'm claiming I never said what you apply to me.  If you can show me where I said left wing = poor, do so.  If you can't, don't make such claims.  

I didn't point toward any ideological leaning nor did I say left wing = poor.  What I said, and what I'll say again, is LEFT WINGER IDEOLOGY thinks that one person owes another person something and whether the recipient is left, right, or dead in the middle means nothing as I don't go by what they believe but what far too many expect someone else to be forced to do for them.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 29, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



So when you say "your stuff" you mean "you" generic.  Got it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 30, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



So you can't provide any proof of YOUR claim that I said left wing = poor.  Got it.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 30, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > If I don't pay the taxes you give out for your 'social' programs, what happens to me?  I got to prison.  Men with guns show up, and I either go to prison, or I get shot.
> ...



Well what do you think the IRS swat team is for?

IRS gets its own 'SWAT team' to hunt down tax evaders


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 30, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


It's not what you think it is.  Try reading more than the headline.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 30, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Why do you debate stuff you know isn't debatable?

IRS and Prison Sentences: The High Cost of Low Returns

The IRS loves to brag about its conviction rate – and subsequent prison sentences. In fiscal year 2012 alone, the IRS handed down 3,390 criminal indictments, earning 2,634 convictirainminnslaw_IRS Convictionsons – a hefty 78% conviction rate – and sentenced almost 94% of those convicted to some form of confinement. Of those convicted, 81.5% actually went to federal prison – that’s more than 4 out of 5 people convicted​
Is this true or false?   If true, I rest my case.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 30, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



You claimed an IRS "SWAT team" would shoot you if you didn't pay your taxes.  (A) You misunderstood the use of "SWAT team" in the very article you posted and (B) if I asked you to provide evidence of someone being shot by IRS agents, you'd cuss and run away.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 30, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You are correct.  That specific article was not the one I intended, and I did not check it.

The Gun-Toting IRS

The IRS has armed agents.  This is an undisputed fact, because they were taken to court over it, and effectively won.

Why would the IRS need armed agents?

"but have they shot anyone?"   Irrelevant.   The fact they have guns, for a job of taxing the public, proves my point, regardless of if they have actually shot anyone yet.

Moreover....

Let us even for the sake of argument assume they are not armed, even though I conclusively proved they are..... 

The fact remains that they have sent people to prison over taxes.

So... I refuse to pay my taxes.  Men with guns show up.  I refuse to go with them, and fight them.   They subdue me, or shoot me.   That's what happens when men with guns show up and you fight them.

Why would I run from them?   If you are claiming that welfare is a choice, and not by force, why should I run?

So I either have to fight them, or they drag me away?   If I fight them... I get shot.

No why you are debating this, when no one else is this stupid... I don't know.  I assume you know you lost this argument a long time ago, and are just nit picking to dodge the failure of your position.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 30, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



It was your failure in posting the wrong article.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 30, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Yeah, I already said that.    Now as to the rest of my post, can you answer that, or are you finished here?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 30, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


I'm trying to put myself into the paranoid Waco stand-your-ground scenario you've created, but I don't have that kind of imagination.  Sorry.  I guess the sticking point was "If I don't pay my taxes and they shoot me, what good is the money I've saved by not paying taxes?"

Does not compute.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You are asking an irrelevant question.   That make no difference to my point.

My only point is this.....   Is welfare and other gov-giveaway programs, charity... meaning a choice, or not charity, because it is forced?

Fact is, it is by force.  Not choice.  I don't have a choice but to give money to people who have not earned it.   If I refuse......   men with guns show up, and I either go to prison or get shot.

The rational of what option do I choose, is irrelevant to the point... it's not a choice.   It is forced.  I must give money that I rightfully earned, to a cause that I do not believe in or support.

"well you should!"

Does not matter.   The fact is, it is forced by a gun.   If I refuse to pay that money to that cause, men with guns show up.  I either do the deed, or go to prison, and if I try and stop them from doing both, I would end up shot.

It is wrong, and immoral.

If I came to your home, and shoved a gun in your face and demanded your money, you would give it to me, or be shot.  Then if I gave that money to a poor person outside, you would never sit there and thing "Oh, well I'm so glad that I engaged in charity!"

No, you would call the police, and have me arrested.  You would never thank me, for forcing you to engage in "charity".

But you have an option!  You can give me the money or be shot!  So you should be happy to give me the money!  Right?   Isn't that the point of your mindlessly stupid question?   I should be happy to give government money I rightfully earned, to be given out to people who have not earned it.... because I have an option... death or pay up.  So I should pay up! 

I'm sure you'll be thinking that if you are ever robbed.  You won't even call police I guess.... hypocrite.

Well what if I got everyone in the neighborhood to vote on it?   Then is it charity?

No?   But we voted!  You lost the vote!   Democracy dude!   Fork over your money!

It's still not charity for me to force you to give money to others.

That's it dude.  Nothing more to this debate.  All that other blaw blaw blaw, and pointless questions that pertain to nothing, don't matter.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



So you get to go on for paragraph after paragraph and I'm not allowed to reply?  Do you find words so intimidating?

Here's my POV: You want to be in the club without paying dues.  There's no Berlin Wall keeping you in this country.  I hear Costa Rica's a good place for malcontents with guns.  Don't forget your sunblock.


----------



## Andylusion (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



So in other words you can't even attempt a response to my actual point, so you deflect with irrelevant question after irrelevant question, and 'opinion' of other people's positions, none of which apply to the discuss.

So, since you have nothing left to say, and can't respond to the point made... you are dismissed.  Clearly you don't have anything of value to add to the discussion.  Thanks for playing, have a nice day.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



You've already made up your mind.  You said so.  I don't agree.  I said so.  What else do you think should be said?


----------



## Andylusion (Nov 1, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Well, in a debate, you generally try to have an actual response to the point made.  You disagree with it, but have nothing to say, which is why you constantly deflect, and bring up red herrings.

What else should be said?   Well a mature person would either admit their position is not supportable, or actually have a rational reason for their position.  You have done neither, and now have made it clear you have no intention of doing so.

So no, I expect nothing from you at all.   You have met my expectations thus far.  Continue.


----------



## Arianrhod (Nov 1, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Well a mature person would either admit their position is not supportable, or actually have a rational reason for their position.



I have done so repeatedly in this very long thread, only to be greeted with hyperbolic screeds like yours or shouted down with "It is free stuff!  It IS, IT IS!!!!!" 

Not much rational debate is going to get through that.  So y'all cling to your beliefs and wait for the IRS to kick your door in or Ben Carson to win the election and start tithing you.  I've got other plans.


----------

