Conservatives

[PoliticalChic]

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!

Hey, Waste-Bucket, all you can do is re-play my pamphlet line? No originality.

And every post requires a Rush-quote? Wow, has he got you dancing on a string.

Are you sure you don't want to beg for dispensation, after I nailed you on the whether the rich in this country earned or inherited their bucks? If you sit up and beg I might let you slide. Maybe.

And no come-back about how cheap liberals are? Don't you want to tell me what good, caring folks you are? Just wouldn't hold up, I guess. In fact,if you gave someone a transfusion, the recipient would freeze to death.

Go back to that high stress job at Dairy Queen.

 

[American Horse]

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

Since you've made such a huge issue out of the distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income, I'd like to ask you if you know the difference between the two?


Thank you

 

[PoliticalChic]

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




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.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and say you also believe in the black helicopters from the UN and "9-11 was an inside job."

You’ve shown your customary quick command of unknown facts.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Stalin, Mao LIBERALS??? WOW...

I kinda thought it might come as a surprise to you. You can thank me in private for contributing thusly to your education.

Authoritarian Republicans: Understanding the Personality Type

While not all conservatives are authoritarians, all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070905.html

I guess this "concept" falls into the right wing dogma syndrome...

You're a "Tory", you just don't know it...LOL

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth.
Me

Conservatives born in Germany in the 1920's supported Hitler
Conservatives born in Russia in the 1930's supported Stalin
Conservatives born in America in the 1750's supported King George III

ROFLMNAO...

You sis are an imbecile of the first order.

"Conservative" is a relative term... The Context of those would-be 'conservatives' sets them 180 degrees to that of US Constitutional Conservatives...

US Conservatives ARE ADVOCATES OF LIBERTY... Meaning dumbass, that US Conservatives are LIBERALS...

Which of course is NOT to be confused with the ideological left which through one of the great misnomers of modern history, refer to themselves as liberals... There are no elements of left-think which can, even potentially promote liberty... and given that Left-think stands upon NOTHING IF NOT THE EXPANSION AND EMPOWERMENT OF CENTRALIZED ALL ENCOMPASSING GOVERMENT... it is the ideological left (thats you) who ARE THE ANOLOGICAL KING GEORGE...

LOL... Leftists...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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?

LOL... Whatta SPANKIN'!

 

[Bfgrn]

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

YES, but I don't need to use bluster like you ... THAT one was easy...

Fear in your words... absolutely; your "run along" endings... seething in fear...

If you study history, you'll find it mostly reactionary not ideology driven... things happen as a reaction to human conditions and suffering like social injustice, hunger, bigotry, abuse...

FDR and his New Deal got America out of the Great Depression, saved capitalism while most of Europe fell to fascist dictators AND he saved the lives of thousands of Americans. It wasn't a smooth road and mistakes were made...

There were right wing critics in the 30's that said the economy would recover without all the New Deal programs ... that the economy would come around in the long run... prompting Harry Hopkins to reply: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

Right wing solutions then and now are fantastic ideas...if ONLY you could make PEOPLE evaporate...

Hey, you would have LOVED the Robber Barons... they believed in child labor...

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

ROFLMNAO...

Whatta LOAD...

More leftist blather to reinforce their failing ideology... Liberals are the least friendly people on earth; they're mouthy little bitches with no respect for themselves or anyone else...

What we have in the Block's 'study' is more social 'science' designed to promote SOCIAL SCIENTISTS... AKA: LEFTISTS... it's a lie, a deception... and it's by design.

 

[mash107]

Again, unemployment charts are useless. What if the U.S. drafts all 5 million persons that are on unemployment benefits into the military tomorrow? Would that mean our economy recovered when unemployment goes to 0%?

Geez, study economics a little bit, and then you can analyze FDR's policies:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232]Amazon.com: Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics: Henry Hazlitt: Books[/ame]

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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

YES, but I don't need to use bluster like you ... THAT one was easy...

Fear in your words... absolutely; your "run along" endings... seething in fear...

ROFLMNAO... "fear in your words"... Get serious. You're an idiot.

If you study history, you'll find it mostly reactionary not ideology driven... things happen as a reaction to human conditions and suffering like social injustice, hunger, bigotry, abuse...

"Reactionary"... ROFLMNAO... Why is it always so easy to spot the idiots? "Reactionary" is a term used by the French Leftists during the French Revolution to describe the bourgiouse... and is nearly ALWAYS the case, the French Leftists were describing themselves in their projections of their opposition. There is NOTHING MORE REACTIONARY THAN A LEFTIST... The entire ideology is REACTIONARY... and without exception.

FDR and his New Deal got America out of the Great Depression,

False... the Progressive (Leftist) policy advanced by Hoover and FDR, not the least of which is "The New Deal" turned the moderate recession of 1929 into an international DEPRESSION which lasted a decade....

...

saved capitalism while most of Europe fell to fascist dictators

FDR was a fascist... although he preferred the term "Progressive"... The New Deal was Fascist policy and while FDR was not a dictator, that was far more the result of the people of the US, than any superior qualities which FDR possessed. FDR maintained the Presidency for FOUR TERMS... The longest in US History, and all the evidence one would need to establish FDR as the closest thing to a dictator which one could pull off in early 20th century America.

AND he saved the lives of thousands of Americans.

Name one...

It wasn't a smooth road and mistakes were made...

OH! Looky there, even a blind nut, finds a squrrel now and then... Well said Captain Understatement...

There were right wing critics in the 30's that said the economy would recover without all the New Deal programs ...

Yes, there were and they were exactly right... the recession of 1922 was substantially deeper than 1929... the distinction being that the Federal Reserve was kept nuetral by Harding, for all his faults, simply chose to keep the government out of the markets... and by 1924 the 20% UNEMPLOYMENT of that recession had returned to 2% and the ROARING 20s were ON.

prompting Harry Hopkins to reply: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

LOL... Yeah, you idiots are BIG on snappy cliches... But people eat one way of another and had Hoover not succumbed to the influence of the Progressives and NOT implemented leftist policy failures, the US would have risen from the recession by the 32 election and there would have BEEN NO DEPRESSION

Right wing solutions then and now are fantastic ideas...

Wrong again Einstein... Right wing ideas are just common sense...they just SEEM like Fanatsy to those who lack the cognitive acuity to rise to the lofty intellectual heights of COMMON SENSE...

if ONLY you could make PEOPLE evaporate...

YES! that's it EXACTLY... Total and complete idiocy... of the first order.

Congrats!

Hey, you would have LOVED the Robber Barons... they believed in child labor...

ROFLMNAO... Yeah those mean old robber barons... giving those kids a JOB. So they could help FEED THEMSELVES AND THEIR PARENTS.

If only the world were as perfect as Leftism... then we could ALL be enjoying the high life which the left has historically provided...

 

[Bfgrn]

More leftist blather to reinforce their failing ideology...

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

More leftist blather to reinforce their failing ideology...

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln?

Again, you're intellectual limitations prevent you from recognizing that all of those which you cite stood FOR everything you've stated you stand FOR!

Each one of those men adovacted FOR LIBERTY... Each one fought AGAINST TYRANNY...

You stand FOR TYRANNY!

See how that works?

They were ALL Americans... you're an ANTI-American; as was Galbraith... and as IS every other leftist on earth.

It's not a complex calculation sis... just one well beyond your means to comprehend.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals are the least friendly people on earth; they're mouthy little bitches with no respect for themselves or anyone else...

>>>PubliusInfinitum...You're doing a pretty good impression of a liberal...

 

[mash107]

More leftist blather to reinforce their failing ideology...

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln?

Our founding fathers opposed your regressive ideas of complete government dominance of our lives.

"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects forbids it in the disposition of the public moneys." --Thomas Jefferson to Shelton Gilliam, 1808. ME 12:73

That sure doesn't sound like something you'd support.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Liberals are the least friendly people on earth; they're mouthy little bitches with no respect for themselves or anyone else...

>>>PubliusInfinitum...You're doing a pretty good impression of a liberal...

I AM a liberal... An advocate of LIBERTY... the antithesis of the ideological leftist.

And while you want to project my position as being that of a mouthy little bitch... my position is the key to your intellectual veracity... unlike you sis, my position is substantive, well reasoned, intellectually sound and logically valid; I do not rely on tired cliches and vacuous platitudes... which is to say: I OWN YOU

 

[edthecynic]

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

Since you've made such a huge issue out of the distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income, I'd like to ask you if you know the difference between the two?


Thank you

Unearned in quotes no less. You MUST be a CON$ervative. LOL CON$ need their Straw Men like Linus needs his security blanket.
Where exactly does LimpBoy say "unearned?" He says "versus OTHER KINDS of income."
Earned income would be wages and fees, for example, and other kinds could be Capital Gains.

 

[American Horse]

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

Since you've made such a huge issue out of the distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income, I'd like to ask you if you know the difference between the two?

Thank you

Unearned in quotes no less. You MUST be a CON$ervative. LOL CON$ need their Straw Men like Linus needs his security blanket.
Where exactly does LimpBoy say "unearned?" He says "versus OTHER KINDS of income."
Earned income would be wages and fees, for example, and other kinds could be Capital Gains.

I put the two words in quotes so as to bring them to your attention without upsizing them as you just did. As far as I know those are the two only kinds of income, so when Rush mentions "earned" income the only other is "unearned", and both are taxable. It would be useful for you to tell us what you know about those two types of income, to see if you understand what Rush was talking about, and by extension if you do too.

 

[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!

Hey, Waste-Bucket, all you can do is re-play my pamphlet line? No originality.

And every post requires a Rush-quote? Wow, has he got you dancing on a string.

Are you sure you don't want to beg for dispensation, after I nailed you on the whether the rich in this country earned or inherited their bucks? If you sit up and beg I might let you slide. Maybe.

And no come-back about how cheap liberals are? Don't you want to tell me what good, caring folks you are? Just wouldn't hold up, I guess. In fact,if you gave someone a transfusion, the recipient would freeze to death.

Go back to that high stress job at Dairy Queen.

You mean the one you couldn't rebut so you babbled about "black helicopters?"
ROFLMAO LMAO LMAO
I have reduced you to spewing ad hominems only.

 

[Bfgrn]

More leftist blather to reinforce their failing ideology...

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln?

Our founding fathers opposed your regressive ideas of complete government dominance of our lives.

"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects forbids it in the disposition of the public moneys." --Thomas Jefferson to Shelton Gilliam, 1808. ME 12:73

That sure doesn't sound like something you'd support.

WHERE and WHEN did I promote "regressive ideas of complete government dominance of our lives."

WHY is polarized thinking at an epidemic level in right wingers?

FIRST you need to paint me totally black for your lily white philosophy to have merit...

Our founding fathers fought the Revolution War over oppressive government AND oppressive corporations...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

More leftist blather to reinforce their failing ideology...

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln?

Our founding fathers opposed your regressive ideas of complete government dominance of our lives.

"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects forbids it in the disposition of the public moneys." --Thomas Jefferson to Shelton Gilliam, 1808. ME 12:73

That sure doesn't sound like something you'd support.

It doesn't? Its Jefferson speaking to prudence in matters of the Federal Treasury... It is evidence of Jefferson SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE over leftist entitlement spending... and drilling his corpse into the center of the EARTH over the 8 trillion dollars that the LORD OF THE IDIOTS; King Hussein has committed to spending.

Try reading the actual letter witless... TRY to understand what is being communicated by the actual writings of the founders... its vastly more profitable than pasting semi-quotes from radical leftist disinformation websites.

Jefferson's response to Gilliam was a clear recognition that there is a sacred duty to defend the public's treasure and that the issues which Gilliam felt were essential to national security, had to be weighed against that duty...

And IF you had ANY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF JEFFERSON AND THE BALANCE OF THE US FOUNDERS... you wouldn't be trying to paste quotes from their correspondence and advance THEM IN ABJECT CONFLICT OF THEIR CONTEXT.

ROFL... Leftists.

 

[mash107]

More leftist blather to reinforce their failing ideology...

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln?

Our founding fathers opposed your regressive ideas of complete government dominance of our lives.

"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects forbids it in the disposition of the public moneys." --Thomas Jefferson to Shelton Gilliam, 1808. ME 12:73

That sure doesn't sound like something you'd support.

WHERE and WHEN did I promote "regressive ideas of complete government dominance of our lives."

WHY is polarized thinking at an epidemic level in right wingers?

FIRST you need to paint me totally black for your lily white philosophy to have merit...

Our founding fathers fought the Revolution War over oppressive government AND oppressive corporations...

You supported FDR, and his policies, hence you support regressive government control. FDR actually confiscated people's gold at gunpoint, forced people to work in public works, raised taxes on anything and everything that moved... all regressive ideas that should've stayed in the middle ages.

How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People

Excise taxes proposed by FDR, was usually felt by the poor the most.

The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Hence, you are a regressive statist if you believe firmly in these policies.