posted July 19, 2012 08:40 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 19, 2012 10:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It's true. It's like with YTA in my thread. He had a Conservative answer for everything, but couldn't find a rational, practical answer for any of my responses. How is it the person whose words you considered brilliant wasn't able to easily, conversationally dismantle my positions on his remarks? If I tell you the sky is green, you should be able to take a picture and show me it's not. Disproving something that is actually false is quite easy. I want people to show me that they're capable of actually thinking about what their opinion is.

Randall's position in this thread is that Obama may have been a liar whilst growing up...at least in cases where he might benefit from lying. That is a rational possibility. I don't know whether that's true or false. Obama could be covering that up. It's no more of a political liability whether it's uncovered or kept hidden just like Mitt Romney's taxes. You guys want to see Obama in a bad light for it anyway, so whether it's true or untrue makes little difference. Other people will look at Romney's tax secrecy in the same way figuring that he must have something to hide or else he'd give them up.

---

How can all these smart people like Jwhop, Randall, Ian and I be wrong and YOU be right

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 19, 2012 11:04 PM            

Example:
Jwhop came here with an article stating that Democrats are the party of the Rich.

Whats obviously fascinating about that position is that it would make Democrats the uber-Capitalists of this country, right? That would make Democrats the ones Conservatives are always trying to get tax breaks for, right? This is basic basic stuff here. No rocket science necessary.

Socialism:

It would seem that every Conservative LOVES to throw around the label of Socialism/Socialist whathaveyou. Socialism, it is thought, is that idea where everyone pools their money, and everyone derives benefit from that pooling of resources like in the idea of Socialized healthcare. Every insurance company in our nation is run JUST like that. Every one! Everyone pays into a pot, and if something bad happens, they receive benefits from that pot. It makes sense. It's charitable as an idea (even if it isn't a charitable idea in practice all the time). How is such a pooling of resources to the benefit of those contributing an inherently bad thing? It's not. It only is if the government runs it because the government is inefficient and has to produce results that help the constituent rather than providing a profit. We just had this discussion recently. I'm not wrong, and once again this is not rocket science. This is just using your own noggin to think about things rationally.

Taxing the rich hurts job creation:

This is another one we heard recently. Are job creators creating jobs right now? Yeah, a few. Not many. What's the problem? Is it too high of a tax burden? Nope. The highest tax bracket has been as high as 94%, but currently it's at 35%, and obviously you can pay less if your income is in capital gains. So why, then, are they not creating jobs? Because the market is driven by demand. When there is more demand, there will be more jobs. That is the way it works. The Conservative tenet is false.

posted July 20, 2012 01:10 AM            

The party of Gore, Buffet, the billion dollar green movement, and carbon credits is the party of the mega rich. Republicans are the party of small business. How you can say otherwise and truly believe it is the epitome of insanity.

Your definition of socialism would get you laughed out of any high school political science class. Pooling money is capitalism. In insurance, people pay premiums, and from that claims are paid, and the profit goes directly to the owners or to shareholders through dividends (where the income is double taxed). Insurance in its intended form is capitalistic greed at its finest and purest. Socialism is collective or governmental OWNERSHIP depending upon the structure (no, not the stock market, because SOCIETY doesn't own those companies...individuals do), and socialism is the interim form between the desired collapse of capitalism and the progression of communism. Obama is a Marxist who hopes to destroy capitalism brick by brick.

Any Economics 101 college student knows the impact of taxes on stifling job creation...just like tax incentives create jobs. Local governments do it all the time to attract new industry. We did it here to get the new Kia plant to choose us. Taxes are always a major consideration when making business decisions, not the least of which is expansion and hiring. You insult your party when you say nonsense like that.

posted July 20, 2012 11:51 AM            

1. What you've said here is only true in the sense that there are megarich Democrats. Otherwise, it's nonsense. There are plenty of conservatives at the top of big business. You're characterization is out of step with reality just as my point was making.

2. Socialism has a definition. Conservatives by and large don't adhere to that definition. I've personally pointed that out countless times here, so it's disingenuous to claim that I don't know the ACTUAL definition of Socialism. Socialism, as it's spoken of by conservatives is exactly as I said. Conservatives lament the idea of pooling resources for the benefit of all involved, and yet I correctly point out that this is how insurance works.

Yes, the stock exchange is owned by individuals that make up society. What you said wasn't the least bit rational.

Obama isn't determined to undermine Capitalism, and he's signed into place incentives for small business as a matter of fact. You'll have to do much better than making ridiculous, unfounded statements if you want to win an argument with me.

3. This is the most absurd response of all. You took a talk about taxing the rich, and made it about how Georgia laboriously wooed Kia. You offered no understanding of my point, and then undercut your point by using a bad example. That's not embarrassing for me or my party one bit. The fact of the matter is that wealthy people will only create jobs when there is demand for the products created by their companies. That's indisputable. You, of course, are welcome to try once again. I certainly hope your next effort will be A LOT better.

Rush is a joke. Your belief in him is noted, but not worth a lot. He would have his hands full debating a good liberal. He doesn't crush liberals in his show. I've seen the transcripts. He says ridiculous, unproveable nonsense with authority, much like we get in GU from conservatives.

posted July 20, 2012 12:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Wrong on all three counts. Amazing how you pat yourself on the back with such underwhelming commentary as that. YTA is highly educated and bowed out before he got too angry. He could make mincemeat out of you if he so desired. Distorted thinking like that is what makes the left so ineffectual.

The party of Gore, Buffet, the billion dollar green movement, and carbon credits is the party of the mega rich. Republicans are the party of small business. How you can say otherwise and truly believe it is the epitome of insanity.

Your definition of socialism would get you laughed out of any high school political science class. Pooling money is capitalism. In insurance, people pay premiums, and from that claims are paid, and the profit goes directly to the owners or to shareholders through dividends (where the income is double taxed). Insurance in its intended form is capitalistic greed at its finest and purest. Socialism is collective or governmental OWNERSHIP depending upon the structure (no, not the stock market, because SOCIETY doesn't own those companies...individuals do), and socialism is the interim form between the desired collapse of capitalism and the progression of communism. Obama is a Marxist who hopes to destroy capitalism brick by brick.

Any Economics 101 college student knows the impact of taxes on stifling job creation...just like tax incentives create jobs. Local governments do it all the time to attract new industry. We did it here to get the new Kia plant to choose us. Taxes are always a major consideration when making business decisions, not the least of which is expansion and hiring. You insult your party when you say nonsense like that.

I normally wouldn't respond to a post like your last one, but I can't let such ridiculous comments go unchallenged just because Jwhop isn't here to call you on them. And I am certain Rush would crush any liberal. He does it every day on his show, in fact. Much the same way Jwhop does to you on a regular basis.

---

Praise the Lord

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 20, 2012 12:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
For?

---

Randalls acumen and clear sight. AG, your thinking is one of the foggiest I have seen. You make faulty connections with little logic imo

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 20, 2012 02:15 PM            

What you wrote wasn't keeping the balance, though. It was pretty poorly thought out kneejerk reaction to plainly rational points I was making. You want me to be wrong. I get that. But you still have to say common sense things in retort.

You almost succeeded in the Socialism response, but you left out the acknowledgement that conservatives constantly throw around the term as meaning something other than Socialism. Surely a rational person would have more intellectual integrity than to suppose that the irrational way conservatives (including yourself) use the label is a viable description of what they're lamenting in Democrats. Capitalism isn't in any danger of going anywhere, and it never was. It's a conservative ploy; a scare tactic designed to make Democrats out as bogeymen.

There was nothing remotely common sense in claiming Democrats were the heads of big business in our country. (Who's raking in more than Obama in corporate cash?)

posted July 20, 2012 07:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
None of your points were rational. They are biased. I'm surprised you can't see that. But I'm not trying to win an argument with you.

---

posted July 21, 2012 12:17 PM            

There is a rule in Geometry called the Transitive Property. It asserts that if A = B, and B = C, then A = C. Here's how Socialism equals Capitalism:

Socialism = (Citizens + Business + Ownership)
(Citizens + Business + Ownership) = Stock Market
Stock Market = Capitalism, therefore
Socialism = Capitalism

Super easy. Easily logical.

quote:

---

Clearly, our whole society doesn't own corporations.

---

True, but just as clearly no conservative would discourage any citizen to participate in the stock exchange despite this similarity to Socialism. When George W. Bush was trying to privatize Social Security, his plan was to get everyone into the stock market. If he'd have succeeded, then we'd all be owners of the means of production in our society, and we'd all theoretically benefit from that ownership. We'd be Socialists (by a REAL definition) at the hands of a Republican.

I point this out because 10 times out of 10 when a conservative talks about Socialism they're not really talking about Socialism. It's difficult to even get a conservative to acknowledge the real definitions of Socialism.

Jwhop doesn't point out flaws in my logic. He's like Ami. He makes claims about intelligence that don't jive with reality.

quote:

---

I just don't have the time to debate why the earth isn't flat.

---

Is that it, or are you afraid of the outcome(s)? You never fare very well. None of you do.

quote:

---

Though I don't mind devoting time to dispelling the myth of global warming, because it is a personal passion of mine.

---

posted July 21, 2012 12:39 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 21, 2012 01:07 PM            

however if the numbers are on the other "side" ie people who disagree with you, they are plain old bullies.

posted July 21, 2012 01:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
it's always about popularity and numbers, isn't it? never about thinking for oneself. you are a follower, ami, and ag is not, no more need for explanation.

however if the numbers are on the other "side" ie people who disagree with you, they are plain old bullies.

double standard, wot?

---

.
AG is here to share his opinion and to talk not to just stir up dissension, as you are imho.
That is why I try to ignore you.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 21, 2012 02:02 PM            

Kat, AG is very much a follower. He goes with what he is told by those in positions of authority. He is a great debater, though. I'd like to see him argue the other side sometime.

posted July 21, 2012 02:46 PM            

Randall, I agree about the two not being synonymous, however, the rest of your post is complete nonsense. It's not a small fraction. You are clearly NOT more rational than I am. The delusion is clearly with the Right. Jwhop has not proven me wrong countless times (that's ass backwards). I obviously seek truth to a greater extent than any conservative here. Saying I'm a follower after promoting Rush Limbaugh is extreme irony. I don't know who my authority is, if I'm getting information from one or some.

posted July 21, 2012 02:51 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal