"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[Jroc]

No.

In negotiations with Tipp O'Neal, Reagan asked for and got SIX tax hikes.

You will not be allowed to re-write history just to make Reagan look perfect. He was not.

Maybe you should learn a little history genius

When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Again we see the deliberate deception of the Far Right by controlling the language. "Tax hike" means "tax hike" not "income tax hike." St Ronnie raised every kind of tax except the PROGRESSIVE income tax. Reagan raised all the regressive taxes he could like payroll taxes and gas taxes and cut the progressive income tax. As a result the total taxes paid by the wealthy went down and the total taxes paid by the middle class went up. Reagan started the destruction of the middle class.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

Provide links for your bogus numbers

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Paul Krugman is a certifiable lunatic

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Framing" is an argumentative device used to control the language of an argument. The Framer does this to exclude or minimize opponents' points.

Foxfyre tries to do this in her STZ topics, with minimal success.

Both Jroc and Boss have failed the Rushbot attempts to be successful "interrpeters" on Conservatism, a philosophy that both claims but in fact rejects.

Boss is a far right reactionary and Jroc is a neo-con.

As long as their tactics are exposed, they will always come out on the short end of a discussion.

 

[Jroc]

"Framing" is an argumentative device used to control the language of an argument. The Framer does this to exclude or minimize opponents' points.

Foxfyre tries to do this in her STZ topics, with minimal success.

Both Jroc and Boss have failed the Rushbot attempts to be successful "interrpeters" on Conservatism, a philosophy that both claims but in fact rejects.

Boss is a far right reactionary and Jroc is a neo-con.

As long as their tactics are exposed, they will always come out on the short end of a discussion.

What do you stand for fake? Neo- statism. Conservatism must be beyond your realm of comprehension

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo-statism is a term used by far right neo-cons as a pejorative to attack others.

Yet neo-cons need Big Government right wing progressive military action to continue their goals of overseas military intervention.

Reduce an attempt to frame a discussion, like Jroc did above, and one quickly realizes the deliberate distortion of traditional terms and meanings.

 

[Jroc]

Neo-statism is a term used by far right neo-cons as a pejorative to attack others.

Yet neo-cons need Big Government right wing progressive military action to continue their goals of overseas military intervention.

Reduce an attempt to frame a discussion, like Jroc did above, and one quickly realizes the deliberate distortion of traditional terms and meanings.

You're a big government statist fake. Just admit it and move on. Now go kiss some Bush, Christie ass, it's what you do best., after praising Obama of course. You old farts will be dying out and the young conservatives are replacing you

 

[Boss]

Both Jroc and Boss have failed the Rushbot attempts to be successful "interrpeters" on Conservatism, a philosophy that both claims but in fact rejects.

If I have failed at anything you haven't shown what it is. You people keep calling me a "reactionary" but I haven't seen any example presented. When I ask you what the hell you mean, you act as if I am obligated to disprove your claims. Then you return to claiming that I have failed and you've shown me to be a reactionary. It almost has the makings of an SNL skit.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. I have proven this true with my examples of two Conservatives, one is a social conservative ideologue and the other is a libertarian ideologue. They disagree on almost every social issue on an ideological basis, but both are Conservatives practicing conservative philosophy.

At the very root, Conservatism is the antithesis of radical extremism. There is no "radical right" or "far right:" to speak of, at least not among true Conservatives. Yes, there are some rare far-right ideologues, they make up less than .02% of the voting populace and most of them are anarchists who don't vote. There are also (even more rare) some Liberal ideologues who are Conservatives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What you have not "seen" is only proof of your intransigence and immoral stubbornness.

Understand, Boss, that you simply will not succeed at "reinventing" language here.

You are a far right reactionary with some libertarian ideology, antithetical to true Conservatism, which rejects social con Christian attempts to subvert the Constitution, among other of your beliefs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo-statism is a term used by far right neo-cons as a pejorative to attack others.

Yet neo-cons need Big Government right wing progressive military action to continue their goals of overseas military intervention.

Reduce an attempt to frame a discussion, like Jroc did above, and one quickly realizes the deliberate distortion of traditional terms and meanings.

You're a big government statist fake. Just admit it and move on. Now go kiss some Bush, Christie ass, it's what you do best., after praising Obama of course. You old farts will be dying out and the young conservatives are replacing you

You are entitled to y our wrong opinions. You are a filthy neo-con, who uses Big Government to push your overseas imperialism. That is a Progressive right wing neo-conservatism. You are the neo-statists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No.

In negotiations with Tipp O'Neal, Reagan asked for and got SIX tax hikes.

You will not be allowed to re-write history just to make Reagan look perfect. He was not.

Maybe you should learn a little history genius

When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Again we see the deliberate deception of the Far Right by controlling the language. "Tax hike" means "tax hike" not "income tax hike." St Ronnie raised every kind of tax except the PROGRESSIVE income tax. Reagan raised all the regressive taxes he could like payroll taxes and gas taxes and cut the progressive income tax. As a result the total taxes paid by the wealthy went down and the total taxes paid by the middle class went up. Reagan started the destruction of the middle class.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

Provide links for your bogus numbers

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Paul Krugman is a certifiable lunatic

You are one for even suggesting that stupidity. That is as stupid as suggesting Friedman was a lunatic. Democracy is a blening of many diverse views, not one portrait of black and white.

 

[edthecynic]

No.

In negotiations with Tipp O'Neal, Reagan asked for and got SIX tax hikes.

You will not be allowed to re-write history just to make Reagan look perfect. He was not.

Maybe you should learn a little history genius

When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Again we see the deliberate deception of the Far Right by controlling the language. "Tax hike" means "tax hike" not "income tax hike." St Ronnie raised every kind of tax except the PROGRESSIVE income tax. Reagan raised all the regressive taxes he could like payroll taxes and gas taxes and cut the progressive income tax. As a result the total taxes paid by the wealthy went down and the total taxes paid by the middle class went up. Reagan started the destruction of the middle class.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

Provide links for your bogus numbers

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Paul Krugman is a certifiable lunatic

To pull a Bossy here, by that YOU MEAN you can't dispute the numbers.

 

[Boss]

What you have not "seen" is only proof of your intransigence and immoral stubbornness.

Understand, Boss, that you simply will not succeed at "reinventing" language here.

You are a far right reactionary with some libertarian ideology, antithetical to true Conservatism, which rejects social con Christian attempts to subvert the Constitution, among other of your beliefs.

Well I am not the one attempting to reinvent the language. I am the one setting the record straight on a liberal reinvention that isn't true or accurate.

You can keep claiming I am a "far right reactionary" but without anything to qualify your remarks they are still as baseless as they ever have been. It's obvious you can't show anything to support that claim or you'd have done it by now. So you seem to just want to keep on repeating your lie over and over, like Saul Alinsky says you should, in hopes it will eventually become truth. But you see, I'm not going to let that happen. I will continue to point out your lack of evidence to support your claims.

As for Christians, I believe they have the same political speech rights as you and I. They have just as much right to form coalitions and work for change in laws they don't like or to enact laws they do like. We don't discriminate based on religious beliefs in this country. But because my conservative philosophy tells me this is appropriate, to defend their freedom of religion and speech, you categorize me as a "far right reactionary" and a "religious fundamentalist" or whatever other assorted negative name you can come up with... doesn't matter, we all know you're going to lie and keep repeating the lie until it becomes truth... that's your shtick!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Maybe you should learn a little history genius

When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Again we see the deliberate deception of the Far Right by controlling the language. "Tax hike" means "tax hike" not "income tax hike." St Ronnie raised every kind of tax except the PROGRESSIVE income tax. Reagan raised all the regressive taxes he could like payroll taxes and gas taxes and cut the progressive income tax. As a result the total taxes paid by the wealthy went down and the total taxes paid by the middle class went up. Reagan started the destruction of the middle class.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

Provide links for your bogus numbers

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Paul Krugman is a certifiable lunatic

To pull a Bossy here, by that YOU MEAN you can't dispute the numbers.

Of course he can't, so you are, ipso facto, a certifiable lunatic.

 

[edthecynic]

Both Jroc and Boss have failed the Rushbot attempts to be successful "interrpeters" on Conservatism, a philosophy that both claims but in fact rejects.

If I have failed at anything you haven't shown what it is. You people keep calling me a "reactionary" but I haven't seen any example presented. When I ask you what the hell you mean, you act as if I am obligated to disprove your claims. Then you return to claiming that I have failed and you've shown me to be a reactionary. It almost has the makings of an SNL skit.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. I have proven this true with my examples of two Conservatives, one is a social conservative ideologue and the other is a libertarian ideologue. They disagree on almost every social issue on an ideological basis, but both are Conservatives practicing conservative philosophy.

At the very root, Conservatism is the antithesis of radical extremism. There is no "radical right" or "far right:" to speak of, at least not among true Conservatives. Yes, there are some rare far-right ideologues, they make up less than .02% of the voting populace and most of them are anarchists who don't vote. There are also (even more rare) some Liberal ideologues who are Conservatives.

Repeating your unprovable pontification of your redefinition of the language does not make your preposterous claims any more credible.
Try again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss, you were the one quoting Rushbo on dominating language by reinventing it.

You won't be allowed to succeed at it.

You can keep acting like a right wing version of Alinsky (note your Alinsky like language), and you won't be allowed to succeed at it.

Yes, many in America do try to that, change laws to discriminate based on religious values, pro and con.

You are a libertarian ideologue trying to hide as a conservative, but you will not succeed at it.

We hold up the Rushbo mirror to you as you pontificate, and you see you condemning in fact yourself.

 

[HenryBHough]

Gotta love it when a pre-teen liberal Democrat ^^^^^ gives advice to the opposition.

Love it even more when the damn fool thinks nobody notices.

 

[Boss]

I don't know what you're talking about Jake, I don't think I have ever quoted Rush Limbaugh here.

I am not trying to redefine anything or reinvent anything. I presented a very good illustration to show how conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. You haven't refuted that because you can't. It's a solid and valid illustration of my point.

All you can do is pretend you've won some kind of victory and now you're on your victory lap.

I am not a libertarian ideologue, and I never said that I was. I do have libertarian-leaning beliefs, but not all my beliefs are libertarian or based on libertarian ideology. Some of my beliefs might be considered socially conservative or even socially liberal. But your beliefs are not what make you an ideologue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I implied you were following Rush's Rules. Accuse others of doing what you are doing. Reinvent words. Don't allow the other side to be "intepreters."

All of your points were refuted above so you don't get "just once more."

Your writing reveals that you are libertarian in much of your ideology.

 

[Toro]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

If Republicans keep losing because they keep losing moderates by big numbers, why do conservatives think that an even more conservative candidate that is less appealing to moderates is a winning formula?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because the far right reactionaries and many of the conservatives refuse to believe they cannot craft a message that will pull the necessary numbers from the center and independents required for victory.

That belief is ideological. Boss is an excellent example of that ideology.

 

[edthecynic]

conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology

I will give you a taste of your own medicine.
When you say, "conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology" you MEAN "conservatism is an ideology and not a philosophy."