Conservatives

[PoliticalChic]

That's the whole problem with trying to put up a 'manifesto' from any political persuasion. If the left did the same, they'd find some that agree and disagree. Truth is, we speak for ourselves, with our own prejudices and special interests.

Nicely done. Just a few comments.

In item #1, what types of laws do we want? Few, I hope, and when necessary. I don't believe in special laws to empower one group over another. Nor laws to tax AIG execs 90% of the bonuses they were contractually promised.

Item #2, 'change should be gradual," to avoid unintended consequences. Nowhere do I say that there should be no change. Although I do not have an opinion about gay 'rights,' many gay individuals would argue with you unless their right to marriage as they define it.

Item #8, Data informs policy. Feeling is not knowing. What science is being imposed? In the northeast, there is no question of whether or not to teach evolution. My science teacher explained "creationism" and said it was our choice what to believe, but he would make sure we were conversant with the evidence for evolution. And he did. It is not the 'right' imposing versions of science, global warming is leftist nonsense. And they will brook no disagreement from 'deniers.'

Item #9, you are incorrect vis-a-vis wealth: Taxation. It is the left's policy to tax, the answer to every problem, and the hallmark of the Democrat party. Have you asked yourself this question: when has a 'stimulus' historically worked on a recession, and were is the money going to come from in the next decade?

...when has a 'stimulus' historically worked on a recession ... ?

During the 1930's

I guess this means that you will have to give back your GED.

Check this out:
"No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “ The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

Next time, try to post about some subject you actually know something about.

 

[mash107]

What is logical about Obama's cognitive thought? After discovering how much of a failure Bush's expansion of government was on economic growth, he decides to expand government further? What is rational about spending $2 trillion more than you gather in taxes? He is doing everything in his might to destroy our economy. Just because a Republican regresses on our economic freedoms, doesn't mean it's ok for a Democrat to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What you are describing is extreme poverty, not your citizen of ordinary means who enjoys the benefits of all those things you seem to believe only wealthy people enjoy. And still even the poorest of those people have the potential to benefit when they find themselves capable of pulling themselves out of their situation. The average person of average means enjoys the benefits of all those things more than the average very wealthy person whom you decry, simply because there are more average people on the bell-curve of wealth. Sadly those people you are most concerned about are usually people with some mental/emotional/drug problem which keeps them in their situation.

I wonder about definitions, such as 'poor."

"When you look at the people who John Edwards insists are poor, what you find is that the overwhelming majority of them have cable television, have air conditioning, have microwaves, have two color TVs; 45 percent of them own their own homes, which are typically three-bedroom homes with 1.5 baths in very good recondition. On average, poor people who live in either apartments or in houses are not crowded and actually have more living space than the average person living in European countries, such as France, Italy or England.

Also, a lot of people believe that poor people are malnourished. But in fact when you look at the average nutriment intake of poor children, it is virtually indistinguishable from upper-middle-class children. In fact, poor kids by the time they reach age 18 or 19 are taller and heavier than the average middle-class teenagers in the 1950s at the time of Elvis. And the boys, when they reach 18, are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs storming the beaches of Normandy. It’s pretty hard to accomplish that if you are facing chronic food shortages throughout your life. "

FrontPage Magazine

...When you look at the people who John Edwards insists are poor, what you find is that the overwhelming majority of them have cable television, have air conditioning, have microwaves, have two color TVs; 45 percent of them own their own homes, which are typically three-bedroom homes with 1.5 baths in very good recondition....

Pure baloney. Where's your evidence?

Are you familiar with Robert Rector, who made the statements?

Robert Rector is a leading national authority on poverty, the U.S.welfare system and immigration and is a Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow.

Dubbed the "intellectual godfather" of welfare reform by National Review Editor Rich Lowry, Rector concentrates on a range of issues relating to welfare reform, family breakdown and America's various social ills.

Rector played a major role in crafting the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, which, for the first time, required recipients to work or get job training for their benefits. Since its passage, though, Rector has continued conducted extensive research on the economic costs of welfare and its role in undermining families.

Robert  E. Rector

 

[edthecynic]

You really don't have a clue, do you? Hitler's movement was liberal as in "progressive" as in what we now see liberals adhering to today

BALONEY! Hitler is the archetype Reagan CON$ervative, you know it and I know it.

Hitler loved government.

Reagan hated government.
"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem!"

Wow, the similarities are really there!

The similarities are striking, Hitler was a liar just like 9/11 Reagan. In your quote, Reagan SAYS he's against big government, but government grew bigger while he was president. Like all CON$ from Hitler to Reagan to Bush, they SAY one thing and do the opposite. They are twin sons of different mothers. LOL

 

[dilloduck]

BALONEY! Hitler is the archetype Reagan CON$ervative, you know it and I know it.

Hitler loved government.

Reagan hated government.
"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem!"

Wow, the similarities are really there!

The similarities are striking, Hitler was a liar just like 9/11 Reagan. In your quote, Reagan SAYS he's against big government, but government grew bigger while he was president. Like all CON$ from Hitler to Reagan to Bush, they SAY one thing and do the opposite. They are twin sons of different mothers. LOL

Hold it---I thought the 60 rich families ran everything--how could the government grow without them instigating it ?

 

[Said1]

BALONEY! Hitler is the archetype Reagan CON$ervative, you know it and I know it.

Hitler loved government.

Reagan hated government.
"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem!"

Wow, the similarities are really there!

The similarities are striking, Hitler was a liar just like 9/11 Reagan. In your quote, Reagan SAYS he's against big government, but government grew bigger while he was president. Like all CON$ from Hitler to Reagan to Bush, they SAY one thing and do the opposite. They are twin sons of different mothers. LOL

Get a grip. They're all liars.

 

[Bfgrn]

 

[edthecynic]

According to the figures, the richest 1% reported 22% of the nation's total adjusted gross income in 2006. That is up from 21.2% a year earlier, and is the highest in the 19 years that the IRS has kept strictly comparable figures. The 1988 level was 15.2%. Earlier IRS data show the last year the share of income belonging to the top 1% was at such a high level as it was in 2006 was in 1929, but changes in measuring income make a precise comparison difficult.
The average tax rate in 2006 for the top 1%, based on adjusted gross income, was 22.8%, down slightly from 2005 and the fifth straight year of declines. The average tax rate of this group was 28.9% in 1996, and was 24% in 1988.
As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988."
From the WSJ, Richest Americans See
Their Income Share Grow
By JESSE DRUCKER
July 23, 2008; Page A3

Based on your attack of a completly checkable fact, you must be one of those worthless, whiney, ne'er-do-well liberals.
Would you like to retract your criticism?

Or someone who knows the difference between ADJUSTED income and total income as well as the difference between income taxes and all federal taxes.
So you unwittingly proved, just as I said, you are not counting all wealth or all fed taxes.
Would you care to retract your deliberate deception. Of course not, you are a crybaby CON$ervative and CON$ never ever admit the truth.

Mrs. Clinton Honest About Taxes
August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

Wow, the anger you have toward success and wealth, seems to indicate that you are not successful, not wealthy, and surely not happy.

While I can sympathize with you reactions to your own inabilities, incompetance, and, no doubt, lack of satisfactory personal relationships, I can only encourage you to work harder, try to rise about the mundane and menial niche that your 'talents' have carved out for you.
There's nothing wrong with pushing a broom: remember, YOU ARE SOMEBODY!

How very LIBERAL of you to say that! LOL

[L]iberals can't win in an argument against anybody. All they can do is discredit and insult and try to literally destroy their enemies because ideologically they can't win.
Rush Limbaugh

Let's review.
Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke). If you find that there are weaknesses in the tax code, try to address that issue, don't blame those smarter than you for using the code to their benefit.
Do you understand?

My point, and a valid one, is that those who report earned income for tax purposes at the top of the earned-income pyramid, pay more than their equivalent share of taxes.

Those earners actually pay a greater portion of the taxes since the Bush tax cuts.

The top 50% of earners pay over 96% of taxes. What more do you want?

The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation's private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent.

BTW, Rush Limbaugh makes statements like those you quote simply to infuriate whining covetous individuals like you.

Thanks for playing along.

Your words, parroted from some CON$ervative website, were rebutted by LimpBoy himself, because he gets pleasure slipping little bits of truth in with his lies because he knows his audience is too STUPID to catch him, even with help. He MOCKS your ignorance habitually and laughs at you all the way to the bank.
Wage earners are taxed the most but wage earners are not the "rich." LimpBoy told you that himself. The "rich" accumulate wealth not wages.

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

And here we have the quintessential liberal.
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote

Chic...WOW ...I don't think I've run across anyone that uses projection more than you. Here on a board where right wingers attack Obama because of speaking ticks even though his cognitive thought is perfectly logical and sound and where paranoid right wingers are hiding under their beds because Obama can capture the attention of a crowd BUT... so could Hitler...

I've got news for you...fear is an EMOTION...it is what drives right wingers like you 24/7...

And then you cap it off with a quote from that goof A. Coulter

Were you the one that Leonard von Sacher-Masoch was writing about? I thought that I gave you enough of a beating on the first page that you would be smart enough to quit.

Oops! Did I say "smart'? Bet that's the first time your name and that word have appeared in the same sentence.

And plagiarism! You're a thief as well! I said you were using "projection," and now you use it. I guess you were impressed, huh? Is that what they mean by "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"?

A conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a liberal.

"...attack Obama because of speaking ticks..." Wha? When did I say that? I think someone stole the cork out of your lunch. (ask someone to explain that one to you)

And you see some sort of 'fear' in my posts? Figures.

BTW, how many of Queen Ann's best-sellers have you read? Didn't mean to embarass you, you can get them as audio-books.

Now run along.

 

[edthecynic]

Hitler loved government.

Reagan hated government.
"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem!"

Wow, the similarities are really there!

The similarities are striking, Hitler was a liar just like 9/11 Reagan. In your quote, Reagan SAYS he's against big government, but government grew bigger while he was president. Like all CON$ from Hitler to Reagan to Bush, they SAY one thing and do the opposite. They are twin sons of different mothers. LOL

Hold it---I thought the 60 rich families ran everything--how could the government grow without them instigating it ?

Well, answer your own question. Big Government Reagan was just a puppet on a string, spouting scripted small government rhetoric as he grew the government bigger and bigger and bigger.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Or someone who knows the difference between ADJUSTED income and total income as well as the difference between income taxes and all federal taxes.
So you unwittingly proved, just as I said, you are not counting all wealth or all fed taxes.
Would you care to retract your deliberate deception. Of course not, you are a crybaby CON$ervative and CON$ never ever admit the truth.

Mrs. Clinton Honest About Taxes
August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

Wow, the anger you have toward success and wealth, seems to indicate that you are not successful, not wealthy, and surely not happy.

While I can sympathize with you reactions to your own inabilities, incompetance, and, no doubt, lack of satisfactory personal relationships, I can only encourage you to work harder, try to rise about the mundane and menial niche that your 'talents' have carved out for you.
There's nothing wrong with pushing a broom: remember, YOU ARE SOMEBODY!

How very LIBERAL of you to say that! LOL

[L]iberals can't win in an argument against anybody. All they can do is discredit and insult and try to literally destroy their enemies because ideologically they can't win.
Rush Limbaugh

Let's review.
Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke). If you find that there are weaknesses in the tax code, try to address that issue, don't blame those smarter than you for using the code to their benefit.
Do you understand?

My point, and a valid one, is that those who report earned income for tax purposes at the top of the earned-income pyramid, pay more than their equivalent share of taxes.

Those earners actually pay a greater portion of the taxes since the Bush tax cuts.

The top 50% of earners pay over 96% of taxes. What more do you want?

The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation's private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent.

BTW, Rush Limbaugh makes statements like those you quote simply to infuriate whining covetous individuals like you.

Thanks for playing along.

Your words, parroted from some CON$ervative website, were rebutted by LimpBoy himself, because he gets pleasure slipping little bits of truth in with his lies because he knows his audience is too STUPID to catch him, even with help. He MOCKS your ignorance habitually and laughs at you all the way to the bank.
Wage earners are taxed the most but wage earners are not the "rich." LimpBoy told you that himself. The "rich" accumulate wealth not wages.

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

Upon reading your posts, it becomes clear why you have a bathroom dirty-towel receptacle for your avatar.

So you agree, the rich pay more than their share of taxes, as compared to their position as top earners?

And you admit that it is simply your covetousness that makes you squeal like a pig when you consider that others have done better than you? Must be those 'unsatisfactory personal relationships,'again.

And you should know that most of the wealthy in this country have earned their money, not inherited it, unless their name is Kennedy.

And, unlike your position, there is a great upward mobility in that only a single digit percentage of individuals remain in the poorest levels of society..

G-d bless America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll assume that my complete ass-whuppin' has taken away your 'voice,' so I'm guessing that the graph is supposed to mean that the FDR stimulus was efficacious.

If that is your point, have your attendant read my previous post and pay special attnetion to FDR's own sec'y of treasury who admitted the opposite.

And the part where unemployment was as high 7 years into the New Deal as under Hoover.

and this:
After the stock market crash,, the Dow hit 250 in 1930 under Hoover (it had been 343 before the crash). January 1940, after seven years of the New Deal, the market had collapsed to 151, and remained in the low 100’s through most of FDR’s terms

Is that a white flag I see?

 

[edthecynic]

Wow, the anger you have toward success and wealth, seems to indicate that you are not successful, not wealthy, and surely not happy.

While I can sympathize with you reactions to your own inabilities, incompetance, and, no doubt, lack of satisfactory personal relationships, I can only encourage you to work harder, try to rise about the mundane and menial niche that your 'talents' have carved out for you.
There's nothing wrong with pushing a broom: remember, YOU ARE SOMEBODY!

How very LIBERAL of you to say that! LOL

[L]iberals can't win in an argument against anybody. All they can do is discredit and insult and try to literally destroy their enemies because ideologically they can't win.
Rush Limbaugh

Let's review.
Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke). If you find that there are weaknesses in the tax code, try to address that issue, don't blame those smarter than you for using the code to their benefit.
Do you understand?

My point, and a valid one, is that those who report earned income for tax purposes at the top of the earned-income pyramid, pay more than their equivalent share of taxes.

Those earners actually pay a greater portion of the taxes since the Bush tax cuts.

The top 50% of earners pay over 96% of taxes. What more do you want?

The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation's private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent.

BTW, Rush Limbaugh makes statements like those you quote simply to infuriate whining covetous individuals like you.

Thanks for playing along.

Your words, parroted from some CON$ervative website, were rebutted by LimpBoy himself, because he gets pleasure slipping little bits of truth in with his lies because he knows his audience is too STUPID to catch him, even with help. He MOCKS your ignorance habitually and laughs at you all the way to the bank.
Wage earners are taxed the most but wage earners are not the "rich." LimpBoy told you that himself. The "rich" accumulate wealth not wages.

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

Upon reading your posts, it becomes clear why you have a bathroom dirty-towel receptacle for your avatar.

It's an OBSERVATORY! LOL

So you agree, the rich pay more than their share of taxes, as compared to their position as top earners?

BALONEY! Are you STONED or just STUPID.

And you admit that it is simply your covetousness that makes you squeal like a pig when you consider that others have done better than you? Must be those 'unsatisfactory personal relationships,'again.

Liberal families, on the average, earn more income than you underachieving CON$ervative slackers so you are again PROJECTING.

And you should know that most of the wealthy in this country have earned their money, not inherited it, unless their name is Kennedy.

I've already shown you WEALTH is inherited and WAGES are earned. Even LimpBoy admits there is a legal tax distinction between WEALTH and EARNED INCOME.

Mrs. Clinton Honest About Taxes
August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
No, it's a bathroom dirty-towel receptacle for your avatar.

Liberal families, on the average, earn more income than you underachieving CON$ervative slackers so you are again PROJECTING

And, you know, I've always wondered why you don't try to hide this fact? After all, don't you realize how awful it makes liberals look when you earn more, yet give so much less to charity?
"— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)."
Arthur Brooks, Syracuse University

But it explains your vote:
"Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings." (Sam Stein Huffington Post)
and
"Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed."
Byron York, NR

And you should know that most of the wealthy in this country have earned their money, not inherited it, unless their name is Kennedy.

I've already shown you WEALTH is inherited and WAGES are earned. Even LimpBoy admits there is a legal tax distinction between WEALTH and EARNED INCOME.

"Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.”
Most Wealthy Individuals Earned, Not Inherited, Their Wealth - Consumerism Commentary, personal finance since 2003

How ya' like them apples, waste-bucket?

"

 

[mash107]

Since when does unemployment numbers matter?

The Soviet Union had 100% employment throughout its entire history.

What matters is the amount of goods produced. That is, GDP minus consumption and spending. If consumption and spending did matter, why wouldn't all governments spend a $trillion an hour and ensure we have an astronomically high gdp? It simply doesn't matter, in the scheme of things.

 

[Bfgrn]

Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

And here we have the quintessential liberal.
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote

Chic...WOW ...I don't think I've run across anyone that uses projection more than you. Here on a board where right wingers attack Obama because of speaking ticks even though his cognitive thought is perfectly logical and sound and where paranoid right wingers are hiding under their beds because Obama can capture the attention of a crowd BUT... so could Hitler...

I've got news for you...fear is an EMOTION...it is what drives right wingers like you 24/7...

And then you cap it off with a quote from that goof A. Coulter

Were you the one that Leonard von Sacher-Masoch was writing about? I thought that I gave you enough of a beating on the first page that you would be smart enough to quit.

Oops! Did I say "smart'? Bet that's the first time your name and that word have appeared in the same sentence.

And plagiarism! You're a thief as well! I said you were using "projection," and now you use it. I guess you were impressed, huh? Is that what they mean by "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"?

A conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a liberal.

"...attack Obama because of speaking ticks..." Wha? When did I say that? I think someone stole the cork out of your lunch. (ask someone to explain that one to you)

And you see some sort of 'fear' in my posts? Figures.

BTW, how many of Queen Ann's best-sellers have you read? Didn't mean to embarass you, you can get them as audio-books.

Now run along.

LOL... I guess I missed that "beating" you claim...oh, I see, because I ignored your childish rantings and moved on to other posts you declare victory...how right wing pea brained of you...

Plagiarism you say... I didn't know YOU held copyright on the phrase "projection"

Hey Chic-a-dee; what do YOU call the postings YOU try to pass off as your words on the Great Depression as gospel...dribbling that originates from WSJ bloggers mixed in with such esteemed economic authorities as radio talk show host Michael Medved?

BTW... the source of your Henry Morgenthau Jr. quote is Burton Folsom... the father of right wing revisionist pea-brainism... the SAME Burton Folsom that now claims the Robber Barons were really humanitarians...

A Coulter...I never listen to that guy...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

And here we have the quintessential liberal.
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote

Chic...WOW ...I don't think I've run across anyone that uses projection more than you. Here on a board where right wingers attack Obama because of speaking ticks even though his cognitive thought is perfectly logical and sound and where paranoid right wingers are hiding under their beds because Obama can capture the attention of a crowd BUT... so could Hitler...

I've got news for you...fear is an EMOTION...it is what drives right wingers like you 24/7...

And then you cap it off with a quote from that goof A. Coulter

Were you the one that Leonard von Sacher-Masoch was writing about? I thought that I gave you enough of a beating on the first page that you would be smart enough to quit.

Oops! Did I say "smart'? Bet that's the first time your name and that word have appeared in the same sentence.

And plagiarism! You're a thief as well! I said you were using "projection," and now you use it. I guess you were impressed, huh? Is that what they mean by "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"?

A conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a liberal.

"...attack Obama because of speaking ticks..." Wha? When did I say that? I think someone stole the cork out of your lunch. (ask someone to explain that one to you)

And you see some sort of 'fear' in my posts? Figures.

BTW, how many of Queen Ann's best-sellers have you read? Didn't mean to embarass you, you can get them as audio-books.

Now run along.

LOL... I guess I missed that "beating" you claim...oh, I see, because I ignored your childish rantings and moved on to other posts you declare victory...how right wing pea brained of you...

Plagiarism you say... I didn't know YOU held copyright on the phrase "projection"

Hey Chic-a-dee; what do YOU call the postings YOU try to pass off as your words on the Great Depression as gospel...dribbling that originates from WSJ bloggers mixed in with such esteemed economic authorities as radio talk show host Michael Medved?

BTW... the source of your Henry Morgenthau Jr. quote is Burton Folsom... the father of right wing revisionist pea-brainism... the SAME Burton Folsom that now claims the Robber Barons were really humanitarians...

A Coulter...I never listen to that guy...

Liberal playbook- I mean pamphlet- item one: when you cannot find error or any fault in the facts presented, attack the source or author.

Although none of my words are from a WSJ blog, I can understand why you would assume that others cannot put intelligent sentences together. After all, we can only judge others by ourselves.

I guess you did miss the "beating," but everybody else has seen it.

And you did copy my reference.

Can you document any of the facts that I have posted that are not accurate? Any? No?

And making a snide comment about Queen Ann, and then lying with "I never listen to that guy"...and of course you never have read any of her material, much less been able to dispute her points. You are so transparent.

So, considering you debating skills, intellect, knowledge, political acumen, I can only say:

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN

Debating with you is like playing handball against the drapes.

Now, go away like a good little wraith.

 

[edthecynic]

[
No, it's a bathroom dirty-towel receptacle for your avatar.

Liberal families, on the average, earn more income than you underachieving CON$ervative slackers so you are again PROJECTING

And, you know, I've always wondered why you don't try to hide this fact? After all, don't you realize how awful it makes liberals look when you earn more, yet give so much less to charity?
"— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)."
Arthur Brooks, Syracuse University

But it explains your vote:
"Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings." (Sam Stein Huffington Post)
and
"Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed."
Byron York, NR

And you should know that most of the wealthy in this country have earned their money, not inherited it, unless their name is Kennedy.

I've already shown you WEALTH is inherited and WAGES are earned. Even LimpBoy admits there is a legal tax distinction between WEALTH and EARNED INCOME.

"Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.”
Most Wealthy Individuals Earned, Not Inherited, Their Wealth - Consumerism Commentary, personal finance since 2003

How ya' like them apples, waste-bucket?

"

Well, as long as YOU get to DEFINE "wealthy" you can "prove" anything. But I said the "wealthy" were the 60 Families also known as The Establishment who measure their family's CONTROL in the billions and trillions. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are PAUPERS compared to the wealth the Rockefeller Family CONTROLS. We're talking other families like the Mellons and Du Ponts, etc. These 60 Families ESTABLISHED phony charities to dodge taxes, control their monopolies, and pass their wealth on to each new generation without taxes of any kind. You see, if your family heads and controls the charity and you donate the controlling interests of your companies to the "charities" you control you no longer "own" them, the "charity" does, but you still have control and vote the stock as head of the "charity" and you get a tax deduction as a "charity" donation as the cherry on top.

The law was eventually changed banning the packing the board of the "charity" with family members, but those families who ESTABLISHED their "charities" before the change were allowed to keep them, thus getting the name the Establishment.
Those families are the wealthy I'm talking about, not the paupers you CON$ "DEFINE" as "wealthy."

BTW, Tax attorney Rev Pat Robertson found a loophole in the law that ended packing the board of a charity with family members. Thanks to separation of church and state, the government can't tell a MINISTRY who can and can't sit on its board. So you can find Jesus and start a ministry and dodge your taxes like a Blue Blood.

It's easy for CON$ to be more charitable than Libs when CON$ give to themselves.

 

[edthecynic]

CON$ervative programming- I mean playbook- I mean pamphlet- item one:

Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing.
Rush Limbaugh

Liberal playbook- I mean pamphlet- item one: when you cannot find error or any fault in the facts presented, attack the source or author.

Wow, the anger you have toward success and wealth, seems to indicate that you are not successful, not wealthy, and surely not happy.

While I can sympathize with you reactions to your own inabilities, incompetance, and, no doubt, lack of satisfactory personal relationships, I can only encourage you to work harder, try to rise about the mundane and menial niche that your 'talents' have carved out for you.
There's nothing wrong with pushing a broom: remember, YOU ARE SOMEBODY!

 

[Peejay]

ED makes a great point.

Warren Buffet was on TV having his nuts waxed for all his fans to admire. They kept leading in and out of commercial breaks with a great little snippet: "How would you feel if your father was a billionaire and gave you nothing ?"

They kept saying this and then they had his three kids on and guess what ? Sure, ol' Warren gave them nothing. Well, not exactly. Each of his three kids formed their own charities, of which they chair, and ol' Warren gave each kid, um, I mean, charity, a billion dollars.

Pretty neat fucking trick. Tax deductible for him and tax free for his kids.

That's just one way the rich get around paying their fair share.