published Tuesday, July 10th, 2012

Political Baggage

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

243
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
blackwater48 said...

LEGAL IS DIFFERENT THAN MORAL

Sure, it's perfectly legal for Mitt Romney to hide million$ overseas to take advantage of our tax laws. He only released his tax return for one year, 2010, but it's clear that he's not breaking any rules. It did show, however, that Mitt is paying a tax rate of around 14% - lower than practically everybody in America, even other fabulously-well-to-do people in his own tax bracket.

Not breaking any laws and well within his rights. Oh, and he's wants to be president so he can cut his taxes in half.

However his late father, George Romney, had a different style when running for President in 1968. He released tax returns from a dozen years because, he said, releasing tax return for just one year could be "a fluke." Those returns showed that George paid a tax rate of around 35%.

Not breaking any laws and was well within his rights, too.

George Romney identifid with working class families because he was a self-made man who and ran a transparent campaign guided by a moral compass. That doesn't mean he was the best candidate that year or would have made a great president, but we shouldn't compare Mitt Romney to Barack Obama.

We should compare Mitt to his daddy.

July 10, 2012 at 12:58 a.m.
David_Franks said...

blackwater48--

Well said.

July 10, 2012 at 1:32 a.m.

Tsk-tsk, implying that a presidential candidate has standards to meet? That how they handle their money matters? Nobody ever questions Bruce Wayne or Lex Luthor.

Much better to focus on real issues like a still suspicious birth certificate.

July 10, 2012 at 1:58 a.m.
alprova said...

"Rick Perry To 6.5 Million Texans With No Healthcare-You're On Your Own"

"According to Perry, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimates that the Medicaid expansion would cost Texas $27 billion in the first 10 years, an estimate most Texas Democrats dispute, and with very good reason."

"Under the Affordable Care Act, the first three years of the Medicaid expansion would be 100 percent paid for by the federal government, followed by two years where 95 percent would be covered by the Feds. Thereafter, Texas would only be responsible to pay 10 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion."

Read the entire article;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/07/09/rick-perry-to-6-5-million-texans-with-no-healthcare-youre-on-your-own/

July 10, 2012 at 5:04 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Willard has his own idea of what it is to be an American, hide your wealth in foreign countries, ship jobs over seas for more money in his foreign bank accounts, taking obscene amounts of money from those who will run this country should heaven-forbid he be elected. We can go back to the horse and buggy and lighting our homes with whale oil with this party of all for the 1% and they don't even pretend anymore that there's anything left for the 99% who keep this nation running and somewhat civilized. They have no desire to move into the 21st century like the rest of the developed world. Thankfully, my days left on this planet are few, but I would like to see all you regressives drown in your own swill.

July 10, 2012 at 5:33 a.m.
anniebelle said...

(Reuters) - If the ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes were to go out with his lantern in search of an honest man today, a survey of Wall Street executives on workplace conduct suggests he might have to look elsewhere.

A quarter of Wall Street executives see wrongdoing as a key to success, according to a survey by whistleblower law firm Labaton Sucharow released on Tuesday.

In a survey of 500 senior executives in the United States and the UK, 26 percent of respondents said they had observed or had firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace, while 24 percent said they believed financial services professionals may need to engage in unethical or illegal conduct to be successful.

July 10, 2012 at 5:38 a.m.
fairmon said...

At first glance this cartoon appeared to be about more Obama vacations. Obviously the libor manipulation scandal indicates we need more regulations for the regulators to ignore or not understand. I doubt the difference in Obama and Romney would be noticeable without a major turnover in congress. Why is the administration and congress so hung up on tax rates instead of eliminating tax deductions, reductions, exemptions, credits etc. where the wealthy disproportionally benefit?

July 10, 2012 at 6:05 a.m.
fairmon said...

Who in their right mind would not take every legal step available to reduce their taxes? This is a non issue unless there is something illegal such as Geitner and others not reporting income. This cartoon is political rhetoric and has nothing to do with the fact he may not be a good president.

July 10, 2012 at 6:10 a.m.
EaTn said...

Romney's plan to buy his way into office would normally work except it won't hide his record as the forerunner of Obamacare when governor, the great jobs-outsourcer as a CEO and of course the obscure foreign accounts.

July 10, 2012 at 6:42 a.m.
Reardon said...

Boohoo, you parasitic moochers. I'm so sorry you couldn't bilk one man's EARNINGS to an ARBITRARY degree that would please the Socialist in you.

The lack of understanding of the capitalist system is beyond belief. Fear and greed run the world, whether it's from the board room or the Congress.

The question isn't whether or not it's possible to eradicate greed (guess what, you can't.); the question is whether or not you want individuals to be greedy OR if you want bureaucrats with ability to use arbitrary force against you to determine what's greedy and what's not.

Parasitic Socialists of the TFP -- for once, THINK instead of REACT. What does money traveling abroad, outside the reach of moochers like you and the officials you elect, indicate to how the producers who actually make something of themselves and their communities, regard the wealth-draining laws that have come up over the years?

July 10, 2012 at 6:48 a.m.
dude_abides said...

"The question isn't whether or not it's possible to eradicate greed (guess what, you can't.)" -Reardon

But do we have to elect it President?

July 10, 2012 at 7:23 a.m.
degage said...

Lets see, as Gov, Mitt took no Salary he gives more than 15% to charity and hes the bad guy. Obamas family take dozens of vacation costing tax payers millions of dollars. Who ever heard of a 13 year old taking a spring break to mexico with 12 friends and 25 ss on the taxpayer dollar. Obama claimed to have only made 785,000 last year so he couldn't afford those vacation without tax dollars.They fly the dog in a seperate jet, mamma obama goes ahead in a seperate plane. Seems with so many people in trouble he would try to conserve. Obama is the Pot calling the kettle black.

July 10, 2012 at 7:23 a.m.
MTJohn said...

harp3339 said..."Who in their right mind would not take every legal step available to reduce their taxes?"

A person who understands that selfishness is not supposed to be an American value.

July 10, 2012 at 7:43 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Reardon said..."The lack of understanding of the capitalist system is beyond belief. Fear and greed run the world, whether it's from the board room or the Congress."

Yes, fear and greed run the world - really, it's just greed that runs the world because greed is the foundation for the fear that you mentioned. And, I agree that we cannot eradicate greed. The problem with free-market capitalism is not that it is motivated by greed but that it operates on the premise that "greed is good". The love of money is the root of all evil and, in this country, we worship money and celebrate greed.

July 10, 2012 at 7:48 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

he gives more than 15% to charity

How much of that was given to the Church of LDS, who clearly state they want to replace the constitution?

July 10, 2012 at 7:51 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

anniebelle: I can assure you Diogenes never met BHO and his thug Chicago friends.

July 10, 2012 at 8 a.m.
fairmon said...

MTJohm said....

A person who understands that selfishness is not supposed to be an American value.

I am not a Romney fan however legally avoiding taxes while donating 15% of your income to charity does not sound selfish to me. I assume, based on your comment, that you don't take the tax saving measures available to you such as the personal deduction?

The federal government has no justifiable reason to be involved in any welfare program. The states and cathredial builders need to step up. 117,000 additional federal employees and growing is proof the federal government is too big to manage but not too big to fail.

July 10, 2012 at 8:15 a.m.
conservative said...

Capitalism feeds the poor, Socialism creates the poor.

July 10, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.

Clay and his minions... what a sad and pathetic bunch.

Bring back Bruce Plante!

July 10, 2012 at 8:31 a.m.
degage said...

Did you notice Ike questioned where the charity money went but left out saying anything about his god Obama and his familys massive spending for their own gratification. Double standard!

July 10, 2012 at 8:44 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Capitalism feeds the poor, Socialism creates the poor."

Such a statement is further proof that your value system is totally screwed up.

It's so Christian of you to offer it too.

July 10, 2012 at 8:51 a.m.
MTJohn said...

harp3339 said..."I assume, based on your comment, that you don't take the tax saving measures available to you such as the personal deduction?"

You may assume from my comment that I object to the anti-tax rhetoric that has driven the political discourse in this country since Ronald Reagan. We have become a nation of people who demand all of the benefits of American citizenship and demand relieve from all of the burdens that come with responsible citizenship. And, I'm not particularly interested in voting for a man who apparently has a track record of avoiding responsible citizenship and who apparently derives most of his financial support from a small cadre of people who have established track records of avoiding responsible citizenship for the purpose of selfish gain.

Regarding Mitt Romney's charitable contributions, I'm not able to draw a meaningful conclusion based on one tax return. I would like to see a comparison of his savings from the use of tax havens relative to the amount of those contributions.

And, if you want to make the argument that the 15% charitable contribution is an indication of generosity, we need to know to know how much of that 15% went to the LDS church. I'm not intending to criticize the Mormons but merely suggesting that the motivation for those contributions might have been something other than altruism.

July 10, 2012 at 9 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova..

Your erroneous opinion is of no consequence to me.

July 10, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.
MTJohn said...

To quote Andy Borowitz, "The people who demanded to see Obama's birth certificate don't seem the slightest bit interested in seeing Romney's tax returns."

July 10, 2012 at 9:04 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Bleeding heart politicians trying to buy votes from the so-called "disenfranchised" and "downtrodden" is what causes Socialism. Round up the deadbeats and put them in work camps and pay them rather than just handing out welfare and food stamps, etc.

July 10, 2012 at 9:06 a.m.
MTJohn said...

alprova said..."conservative wrote: "Capitalism feeds the poor, Socialism creates the poor."

Such a statement is further proof that your value system is totally screwed up.

It's so Christian of you to offer it too."

Many of us, especially those with a patriotic bent, taut the Christian roots of our nation's founding - some going so far as to suggest that we are a Christian nation. Thus, it would be interesting to ask what this country might look like if we really were a nation that lived by the Golden Rule?

I'd suggest there would be a few prominent differences. We would not have government sponsored welfare programs because Christians, working together, would have eliminated poverty in this country. We would not have labor unions because Christian employers and the Christians who serve on corporate boards would have implemented policies based on the premise that employee welfare is more important profit. etc. etc.

And, please note, I am a practicing Christian. I include myself in the criticism.

July 10, 2012 at 9:16 a.m.
mystyre said...

I think conservative meant... "Capitalism exploits the poor, Corporate Socialism creates the poor."

July 10, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.
conservative said...

MTJohn ....

You wrote :

"We have become a nation of people who demand all of the benefits of American citizenship and demand relieve from all of the burdens that come with responsible citizenship."

Obama recently spoke :

"I was telling you stories about my family — my family didn’t believe in handouts. They didn’t get to where they were because they were always relying on some government program. They understood you got to work hard to make it in America, and you can’t always help somebody who is not willing to help themselves. (Applause.)"

I agree with the words of both of you!!! However, actions often belie words.

July 10, 2012 at 9:35 a.m.
alprova said...

degage wrote: "Lets see, as Gov, Mitt took no Salary he gives more than 15% to charity and hes the bad guy."

Your repeated claim led me to research it. You're wrong.

According to Snopes, for year 2011, Mitt Romney earned $20.908,880 and claimed charitable donations of $4,020,572, having given 19.2% of his income to charity.

During the same year, President Obama earned $844,585. He claimed charitable donations of 173,130, or having given 20.4% of his income to charity.

"Obamas family take dozens of vacation costing tax payers millions of dollars."

Dozens? Really? Try a total of 16 excursions, totaling 61 days. By this same period of time during their Presidencies, GWB had taken 180 days at his ranch in Texas, and Ronald Reagan had taken 112 days off at his ranch in California.

"Who ever heard of a 13 year old taking a spring break to mexico with 12 friends and 25 ss on the taxpayer dollar."

The only cost to the taxpayers was for the Secret Service Agents that accompanied the group, all of whom would have been paid the same had those Agents been on duty in Washington.

"Obama claimed to have only made 785,000 last year so he couldn't afford those vacation without tax dollars."

The rules regarding personal expenses are rather clear. The President pays all the personal expenses for all of their family, in each and every case.

"They fly the dog in a seperate jet, mamma obama goes ahead in a seperate plane."

The dog claim is patently false.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bo.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/bos-private-plane/

"Seems with so many people in trouble he would try to conserve."

Every President is criticized for their time off, but none have had repeated and baseless lies told about their time off, more than the Obama's.

July 10, 2012 at 9:39 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "Your erroneous opinion is of no consequence to me."

You are 100% correct, however, you will have to stand in front of God one day and explain yourself. There will be consequences then, I assure you.

July 10, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said..."I agree with the words of both of you!!! However, actions often belie words."

Agreed. But, anecdotes are just that - anecdotes. If we, as a country, really lived the values that we profess to be American, the anecdotes would be the norm. My statement, with which you agreed, described the norm.

July 10, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.
Leaf said...

There is a weird misperception that rich people somehow always make it on their own, through honest hard work without any support from government or social institutions, and that poor people are poor because they are lazy and just want to live in squalor and collect welfare.

That's ridiculous.

Most 1% ers benefit hugely from government and social programs. They are just different ones. Mitt Romney made his millions mostly because he started with inherited millions, and his father was a governor with all sorts of political and business connections. Therefore, he has benefited from the system much more than your average citizen. Also, as a well-connected Mormon, he has benefitted hugely from that business and social network. Do you really think he would have done as well as an orphan from Calcutta?

If one has benefitted more from the system, it is only right that one give back more.

July 10, 2012 at 9:53 a.m.
mymy said...

When the left, has no record to run on, they are reduced to Class Warfare, etc. Get over it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/8/curl-whos-bailing-on-obama-just-about-everybody/

July 10, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

I wonder where the Kennedy's got their money from. I wonder if they had overseas bank accounts with un-told millions.

I wonder if Jay Rockefeller has money in Swiss bank accounts.

I wonder what ever happened to that democrat that was busted red handed with his freezer full of cash.

I wonder these things why? Because there was NEVER any problem with millionaires from the "main stream media" as long as they were democrats. Would you liberals agree that Joe Kennedy and his sons were a part of the greedy one percent? How about Jay Rockefeller? Any questions for old Jay? And don't give me the cop-out: "well he's not running for president" crap. Where was the "greed hysteria" when Kennedy was president?

July 10, 2012 at 9:57 a.m.
Easy123 said...

whatsnottaken,

"Round up the deadbeats and put them in work camps and pay them rather than just handing out welfare and food stamps, etc."

The Republican slippery slope straight to the Gulag. Thank you for showing your true colors. Heck, let's round up the children and put them to work too!

July 10, 2012 at 9:57 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

"Obama calls for extension of the very Bush tax cuts which he blames for his economy".

Gee, I thought the Bush tax cuts only affected the "rich".

July 10, 2012 at 10:02 a.m.
mymy said...

Benjamin Franklin wrote in a letter penned in 1755: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Soros (Obama’s Puppet Master) Promotes UN Control Over Gun Ownership

http://www.infowars.com/soros-promotes-un-control-over-gun-ownership/

July 10, 2012 at 10:02 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

I don't think the TFP had a comments section when Kennedy was president. Just saying.

Jay Rockefeller got all his money because his grandfather (John D.) was a robber baron. Everyone knows that the Rockefeller's got rich because of shady practices. They just happened to be big philanthropists so I suppose people think it evens out.

Now admit that WIllard Mitt Romney is part of the greedy 1%.

July 10, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

If you'll read something other than Rush Limbaugh quotes. You would know that Obama is looking to only extend the tax cuts on households earning less than $250,000. But please bitch about it so you look really stupid.

You hate taxes then you gripe about the possibility of a tax cut.

July 10, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

But I thought tax cuts were the problem. Obama HATES tax cuts. If he thought tax cuts for ANYBODY were good then why wait 3 1/2 years in? Awful nice of Obama to wait until election time to give tax cuts that he KNOWS will give a boost to the economy. All that says is that he knows tax cuts work. He just doesn't want to do it. He MUST do it to get re-elected.

I LOVE tax cuts! But you must admit, his timing is suspicious.

July 10, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

He already extended the Bush tax cuts once. Did you really not know that? His timing has to be now. The Bush era tax cuts that he extended are set to expire at the end of the year. This is the only time he could do it. You're a terrible conspiracy theorist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08cong.html?_r=1

http://www.advisorone.com/2012/07/09/obama-proposes-to-extend-bush-tax-cuts-excluding-t

July 10, 2012 at 10:21 a.m.
MTJohn said...

mymy said..."When the left, has no record to run on, they are reduced to Class Warfare, etc."

Mymy - the class war in this country is over. The 1% won. And they are holding on to their victory with a lot of help from some of the losers, i.e. the Tea Party.

July 10, 2012 at 10:23 a.m.
mymy said...

Easy: If you live in NY, CA, etc., $250,000 is not rich, but hard to live on with high property cost and property taxs not to mention what it take to raise a family, just feed and cloth ones self, etc. You don't have a clue! What might be rich here is not rich every where else. Even Pelosi and Shumer have expressed the limit should be 1 million, but of course Shumer has already caved.

Obama only proposes this cut for 1 year to get past election and fool a lot of dummies like you. If he were to win re-election: Kattie Bar the Door on Tax increases! He depends on his stupid base to buy into his BS.

July 10, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.
mymy said...

MTJohn: Your full of it!

July 10, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I wonder if Bennett thinks an endless parade of Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Whatever mentors, friends, and associates is political baggage. Probably not, The Wart probably thinks that is exciting and uplifting.

July 10, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Oh brother. "the only time he could do it". If he can single handedly circumvent the U.S. constitution and any law of the land, then SURELY he could have made the tax cuts permanent at ANYTIME he wanted to. And if he NOW thinks tax cuts are good for the economy (which is another flip-flop by the way), then why NOT make them permanent? Tell me, why is NOW the only time he can do it? It couldn't POSSIBLY be the fact that a nervous Obama has a re-election to try and win, can it?

July 10, 2012 at 10:40 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova...

You agreed with me that your opinion was erroneous but then you took it back.

You then go on to usurp the person and authority of God and emphatically "assure" me of "consequences."

You past comments about the Bible have revealed your contempt for it, so why do you even go there?

My salvation is quite secure for it is Jesus Christ who secures it.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" Romans 8:1

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” John 10 : 27-30.

Alprova , your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance of Scripture.

July 10, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
Easy123 said...

mymy,

Median household income in NY: $50,656

Median household income in CA: $56,418

$250,000 goes further in TN and GA. But not too much further. If you want to gripe about the number, go right ahead. But it's still a tax cut. And, of course, you're still bitching about it just because Obama is doing it.

The Republicans depend on stupid people like you to base their entire opinions on assumption and bad information, like this: "Kattie Bar the Door on Tax increases!"

July 10, 2012 at 10:45 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

It's funny to watch how liberals turn into conservatives when an election draws near.

July 10, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

"Obama has made the issue of tax fairness a key feature of his campaign, repeatedly urging Congress to make the tax cuts permanent for low earners."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170772/Obama-takes-GOP-renewed-extending-Bush-era-tax-cuts-ONLY-people-making-250-000.html#ixzz20EP15Boo

The non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts estimated in May 2010 that extending some or all of the tax cuts would have the following impact under these scenarios:

Making the tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, regardless of income, would increase the national debt $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

Making all of the Bush-era tax cuts permanent would not be good. However, some of them, like Obama is proposing, would give the economy a boost

It's not a flip-flop. Obama thinks the middle class tax cuts are good for the economy and he has always thought that. It is the upper class tax cuts that he wants to let expire.

NOW is the only time he could do it because the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Why don't you understand that?

July 10, 2012 at 10:53 a.m.
Easy123 said...

It's funny to watch conservatives turn into ultra-conservatives when an election draws near.

July 10, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.
mymy said...

Easy: You are full of it!

July 10, 2012 at 10:58 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Because it DOESN'T matter WHEN they expire!!!! Just because they expire "at the end of the year" does NOT mean that he could have only done it now!! He could have done it at ANYTIME!! Why now? Why not two years ago? why not three years ago?

July 10, 2012 at 10:58 a.m.
Easy123 said...

mymy,

No rebuttal? LOL!

July 10, 2012 at 11 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Ok, let's go over this again.

  1. Obama already extended the Bush-era tax cuts two years ago. They are expiring at the end of the year.

  2. Obama wants to allow the upper class tax cuts to expire.

  3. Obama is proposing to extend the tax cuts on households earning less than $250,000.

  4. Congress and the House are also involved in this. Obama can't just make this happen. If he made an executive order on this, you would call him Hitler or a dictator.

  5. It does matter when they expire. I'm not sure why you don't get that. This is how it works. Making them all permanent, as you suggested, is a bad idea as I have shown.

  6. WHO GIVES A DAMN WHEN HE DID IT? If he came to your house with a $1 million dollar check, would you bitch and moan that he only did it because it was an election year? You're insane, dude. It's a tax cut. And you are making it a conspiracy. It's unbelievable.

July 10, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

It IS fun to watch! Here we have uber-liberal Obama taking a page right out of the republican conservative playbook just to try and win re-election! It's hilarious! I do love a good tax cut, but just to watch Obama cringe at the thought is refreshing. Obama must soil his god-like hands with a little conservatism just to try to win. Now THAT'S karma for you.

July 10, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Guess what else was Republican/Conservative? OBAMACARE.

And this isn't out of the Republican playbook. It's funny that you think it is.

LOL! You're hyperbole and fabricated little stories are amusing.

July 10, 2012 at 11:11 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Easy. You are as dense as peanut butter fudge. Last year wasn't an election year. Why didn't he do this then? There are no coincidences in this administration. You are lost in Obamaville and will never get out.

July 10, 2012 at 11:13 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

You're hopeless. I've given you the reason. And you still don't get it. It's truly unbelievable.

July 10, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/09/Obama-Tax-Flip-Flop-Left-of-Pelosi

'Obama is panicking, pure and simple. Since April, Obama's outspent Romney and gone hard-negative, but his poll numbers haven’t moved. And Romney hasn’t even started to make his case yet. So Obama is left playing a frantic and erratic game of checkers, hoping he can win news cycles and win voters through the cynical division of the American people by economic class.

The media, naturally, is playing along. All day you've seen them declare that what Obama intends to do is "extend tax cuts for the middle class," when in reality he's demanding a tax increase -- according to his own numbers -- on nearly a million job creators.

Both Obama and the media are once again putting what's best for our country, especially those struggling in the middle class, behind what's best for a failed president's reelection".

I don't get you Easy. Your reasons are over the top, distorted and untrue. You know damn well Obama could cut taxes anytime he wanted to. YOU are unbelievable.

July 10, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
Leaf said...

It's not wrong to be wealthy. It's wrong to assume that wealth is a sign of spiritual favoritism, or a license to oppress the less fortunate.

July 10, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.
mymy said...

Easy123 said...

mymy,

Median household income in NY: $50,656

Median household income in CA: $56,418

Guess who will be the first to loose their job when the boss gets taxed more!!!

July 10, 2012 at 11:41 a.m.
prairie_dog said...

100 rounds of golf at taxpayer expense is a "moral" use of PUBLIC MONEY?

How many children could be fed for the cost of one excursion for Michelle Obama and her kids?

People never seem to bring up the fact that Mitt and Ann Romney gave away MILLIONS of their own money to charity. Obama wants to do the same, except it's your money and mine he wants to give away.

July 10, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
mymy said...

The ghost of Ronald Reagan haunting President Obama

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1727652336001/

You will hear first ear Obama’s flip flop on raising taxes in this economy! Do you lefties still refuse to accept this tax break for those making under $250,000 proposal is not for political/vote buying reasons. He knows the "Easy's" are out there to buy it hook like and sinker.

July 10, 2012 at 2:04 p.m.
Easy123 said...

prairiedog,

alprova said...

degage wrote: "Lets see, as Gov, Mitt took no Salary he gives more than 15% to charity and hes the bad guy."

Your repeated claim led me to research it. You're wrong.

According to Snopes, for year 2011, Mitt Romney earned $20.908,880 and claimed charitable donations of $4,020,572, having given 19.2% of his income to charity.

During the same year, President Obama earned $844,585. He claimed charitable donations of 173,130, or having given 20.4% of his income to charity.

July 10, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
Easy123 said...

tu,

Not in an online format.

mymy,

The main points your poppa Bill said were all speculation. I don't know if you realize that or not. That's what you live on. YOU have bought the Fox News propaganda HOOK, LINE, and SINKER. I don't care if it's for political reasons. But apparently you do. Put please, keep bitching about a tax cut. Please. It just makes you look even more ignorant than you already do.

July 10, 2012 at 2:46 p.m.
mymy said...

Easy: You are LOL funny on top of brain dead!

July 10, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
tderng said...

easy123...AS GOVERNOR of Mass. Mitt refused to take the $135,000 annual salary he was entitled to for his entire term as Governor. Moreover he donated his entire salary ($825,000) plus his severance pay when he took over the Salt Lake City Olympic job. He also donated 1 million dollars of his own money to the same Olympics.He donated the 1 million dollars he inherited from his fathers estate to BYU.

Has BHO ever donated his entire salary to anyone for anything? NO,he hasn't. Of course since his donations might not have been to liberal approved charities maybe they don't count.

July 10, 2012 at 3:27 p.m.
mymy said...

Easy believes everything that comes out of the MSM and O's mouth. He just can't put things together to understand how O policies are detrimental to the economy. Poor Baby, he is gona have a long row to hoe!

July 10, 2012 at 3:37 p.m.
alprova said...

"alprova...You agreed with me that your opinion was erroneous but then you took it back."

I didn't take my opinion back. I only agreed that it was of no consequence to you.

"You then go on to usurp the person and authority of God and emphatically "assure" me of "consequences."..."

Hey...it's no skin off my nose if you don't think that you will indeed have to answer to God for your chosen beliefs.

"You past comments about the Bible have revealed your contempt for it, so why do you even go there?"

My belief that the Bible is not the word of God in no manner is equal to holding any contempt for it.

"My salvation is quite secure for it is Jesus Christ who secures it."

I've never challenged your salvation. My challenge is to say that you do not follow the examples set forth by Christ.

"Alprova , your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance of Scripture."

You just keep on believing that your "conservative" values are Christ like. I'm sure you, like so many others like you, will be in for a very big surprise when you stand before the Father.

You may consider me to be arrogant and ignorant of scripture all day long. You are one that claims that every word in the Bible is the word of God, yet you cherry pick what you consider relevant to your life, and completely ignore the examples that Jesus set forth, including some very fine examples of socialism, which you claim to detest.

If you truly detest offering assistance to the poor, as Jesus did many times without hesitation, then you must hate Jesus himself.

July 10, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Obama in 2010 said raising taxes wld have a "de-stimulative effect," & "potentially you'd see a lot of folks losing business"

BHO simply evolved. Most Repubs will stipulate that Mitt is rich. Find another issue, lefties.

July 10, 2012 at 3:42 p.m.

Tderng, funny you mention the SLC Olympics...which took a federal bailout.

How much? Far more than Mitt Romney put into it. Tell you what, let's turn back the clock, Mitt can have his money back, and the country can have its.

Besides, your last remark has an easy rejoinder. To Mitt Romney, those sums were meaningless to give up.

Where has that parable come up before? Something about the amount of sacrifice?

Oh well, at least I was right about what Trump would say.

July 10, 2012 at 3:47 p.m.
mymy said...

Hey, dumb bulbs: The Olympics was saved. If it had not been, everybody would be blaming Romney and government for not saving them! We love them!

July 10, 2012 at 3:55 p.m.
tderng said...

When Obama first ran for president in 2008. He released his 2006 tax return, which showed $60,307 in charitable donations out of an adjusted gross income of $983,826.

That comes to 6.1 percent of his gross adjusted income two years before he ran for president.

Obama is overwhelmingly generous compared to Vice President Joe Biden's charitable donations in 2006.

According to Biden's 2006 tax return, the couple gave $380 dollars to charity out of his $248,459 adjusted gross income; a percentage of 0.15.

As President, Obama has raised his charitable giving considerably. In 2010, the Obamas donated $245,075 to charities, or 14.2 percent of their adjusted gross income of $1.7 million.

The Bidens, however, gave 1.4 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity in 2010.

Now that's some generous s.o.b.'s! Looks like Obama became more generous after he realized people were gonna be looking at his contributions. Yeah he really cares about the poor. Keep drinking the Jonestown type Kool-aid.

July 10, 2012 at 4:21 p.m.

mymy: Saved? In what way? By using more tax dollars for the show? Great, just what I said he did, and that's the problem.

And no, I wouldn't be blaming the government, I would have been glad they stopped wasting time on it. If you believe that the government should be engaging in those kinds of circuses, fair enough, but do have the courtesy to admit it.

tderng: Because claiming something on your tax returns is a TRUE act of charity, and nobody can donate anything without claiming a tax deduction? I didn't know that.

But where's Mitt Romney's tax returns? How much of Mitt Romney's charitable deductions went to the Mormon Church, which promptly spend them on influencing an election in California? Maybe you're the one drinking the Kool-Aid? Or is it an Arnold Palmer?

July 10, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Mymy believes everything that comes out of the Faux News Propaganda Machine and Bill O' Reilly's, Rush Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's and Mitt Romney's mouth. He just has to make things up and make wild speculations about how Obama's policies are detrimental to the economy. Poor Baby, there will be no row hoeing for him, he's mentally crippled!

July 10, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
tderng said...

happywithnewbulbs said... How much of Mitt Romney's charitable deductions went to the Mormon Church.

So I guess if Obama donated to Rev. Jeremiah Wrights church that would be wrong huh?

July 10, 2012 at 5:04 p.m.

Thanks for misrepresenting my words. Why did you leave out the second clause and add in a period?

"How much of Mitt Romney's charitable deductions went to the Mormon Church, which promptly spend them on influencing an election in California?"

That's the whole of it. If you're going to quote a sentence, quote it accurately.

It's bad enough when somebody tries that kind of thing in an ad, but why did you bother here? Did you think I wouldn't call you out on it?

July 10, 2012 at 5:28 p.m.
tderng said...

hwtnb...If you believe that Obama,with his humongous ego, would not announce (with great fanfare) any large contributions to any charity your nuts...unless the "charity" was controversial of course.

July 10, 2012 at 5:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tderng,

Not wrong. Just not a smart or efficient place to donate your money.

"hwtnb...If you believe that Obama,with his humongous ego, would not announce (with great fanfare) any large contributions to any charity your nuts...unless the "charity" was controversial of course."

This isn't a valid argument.

July 10, 2012 at 5:31 p.m.
tderng said...

hwtnb...After making a contribution to his religious organization of choice,he no longer has any say what they do with the money.

wasn't really worried about being "called out" on anything nimrod. the point I was making was that he doesn't have a say what the money is spent on. He contributed to his church.End of story. The part I left out was inconsequential to the point.

July 10, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tderng,

Then why did you mention Obama's church donations, nimrod?

July 10, 2012 at 5:41 p.m.

The point I was making was very deliberate, and you edited it out in a deceptive manner.

If you want to make a point, do it without editing my words. You should at least own up to your conduct being inappropriate.

You'll certainly never admit that there's something wrong with a church influencing an election if you can't even admit to your own behavior when it's right in front of us.

You'd rather take the preposterous position of excusing Mitt Romney entirely from any responsibility for looking where his money goes. Apparently he's blindly trusting everybody.

And that's what you want in a President? Seems a bit strange. Besides, Mitt Romney IS an Elder in the Mormon Church, and claims to work heavily with their leadership. As such, he can't take your hands-off position either.

But hey, next time somebody goes off about some money in a charity going to terrorism or whatnot, I'll just point them to you. Does the same apply to his business dealings?

Mitt Romney's certainly tried to make us believe that, while strangely wanting us to believe in his great skills.

July 10, 2012 at 5:49 p.m.
tderng said...

easy123...If members of a church do not donate to their church how can the church help anyone in the congregation who may need it? Some people actually have too much pride to take a handout from an individual but will take help from their church.

July 10, 2012 at 5:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tderng,

What's your point?

July 10, 2012 at 5:52 p.m.

Seems to be confusing an attempt to influence an election with actual charity.

July 10, 2012 at 5:57 p.m.
fairmon said...

Charity from the heart is a good thing. There are churches and charities I don't agree with nor do I voluntarily support them. But, the government's allowing tax deductions for churches and other supposedly nonprofits means I supported the churches and charities by default. I will pay more taxes on the same income as those contributing and reducing the amount they pay taxes on. The point is there is no reason for anything other than a progressive tax rate up to whatever maximum percent desired and is sufficient to pay for essential, and only truly essential, federal government spending. People, local and state governments have totally abdicated their personal responsibility to a central government with the myth that entity is the most efficient way to do things.

Think about who benefits most from deductions, reductions etc. The wealthy realize a much greater benefit from the sick tax system that has evolved with all the favor showing, favorites, special interest etc. Set the rates and people pay that rate based on their income. No married, single, head of hh categories, no deductions, reductions, incentives, subsides etc. etc. Apply the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid) and even the stupid has a chance of understanding it.

July 10, 2012 at 6:33 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Imagine that, the head of the DNC has money in Swiss bank accounts.

"Disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past".

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-chair-invested-swiss-banks-foreign-drug-companies-and-state-bank-india_648350.html

July 10, 2012 at 6:55 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"Americans need to ask themselves, why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that?" the DNC chair, a chief surrogate for President Obama's reelection team, said on Fox News Sunday two days ago. "Just something, a thought, that I'd like to leave folks with."

A direct quote from Wasserman Schultz. Hypocrite!

July 10, 2012 at 7:02 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/10/obama_this_will_be_my_last_political_campaign_no_matter_what.html

There IS hope for the future!

It's as if he's actually saying, "C'mon man! Let me screw you for four more years, then I'll leave you alone, I promise"!

July 10, 2012 at 7:04 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"The hypocrisy, though, is clear: The Democrats, as well as President Obama, hope to paint Romney as an out of touch man for holding money in overseas bank accounts, when in reality their own chairman, Wasserman Schultz, had overseas investments".

"All this comes in addition to Wasserman Schultz's refusal to disclose her own tax returns, despite continuously calling on Romney to do so".

July 10, 2012 at 7:12 p.m.

Anybody notice one detail left out of those quotes?

The extent of these "overseas investments" which were listed in the filings as being less than fifteen thousand dollars into 401ks which Waserman-Schultz had what influence in?

C'mon, your omission only highlights how outrageous your attacks are. You can't even tell the difference between several hundred million in assets and a whole lot less. Nor between a trust specifically set up at your behest and run by somebody you know and an investment fund that knows as much about you as a soda machine.

At least try to make your criticisms believable.

July 10, 2012 at 7:21 p.m.
tderng said...

easy123...because hwtnb was having a hissy fit about my leaving off part of a sentence that wasn't pertinent to my point. So I made it pertinent.

also,my point to your retort.... Not wrong. Just not a smart or efficient place to donate your money.

July 10, 2012 at 7:24 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"All this comes in addition to Wasserman Schultz's refusal to disclose her own tax returns, despite continuously calling on Romney to do so".

You obviously forgot something.

July 10, 2012 at 7:27 p.m.
tderng said...

what your basically saying that it's ok for the DNC chair to do it but not Romney,simply because its less money.

July 10, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.

Still trying to avoid owning up to how misrepresenting somebody's words is inappropriate?

If you had just done it without realizing how wrong it was, you'd have admitted the mistake, but the more you try to evade responsibility, the more it looks like you were being intentionally deceitful.

Why? Couldn't you make your point without distorting somebody else's words? Heck, if you hadn't added a period you would be at least not adding something. But you couldn't even do that, and now you try to avoid responsibility for your conduct by blaming me.

Thanks again, your duplicitous conduct is an excellent argument against you.

But last I checked, investing in a 401k whose management is unaware of you is not the same as setting up your own investment funds operated by a close friend, and somebody not running for president isn't running for president. Can't you tell the difference?

Or do you think everybody in politics everywhere should be made to disclose their whole finances? OK then, pass that law. Make sure to cover "anonymous" speech.

July 10, 2012 at 7:32 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Everything I posted was copy and paste. I changed nothing. Read the links and see for your self. Nice try.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-chair-invested-swiss-banks-foreign-drug-companies-and-state-bank-india_648350.html

July 10, 2012 at 7:38 p.m.

Omission in your case, leaving out salient details like the actual amounts and details.

Why? Oh it's kinda obvious, so you can try to bamboozle us.

Too bad you failed.

July 10, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

All I'm saying is that if she's out there bashing Romney for Swiss bank accounts, she should tell people that she also has them too! I don't give a rats behind that she's not running for president, she's part of the "reelect Obama" campaign. Criticizing someone for doing something and then doing the exact same thing is fraudulent at best. (but of course, she figured she had the "main stream media" to help her out).

July 10, 2012 at 7:47 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

What does the amounts have to do with anything? I never left them out. It's all right there in the link. Amounts mean nothing.

What did I fail at? I found a story that's proven your party's chairwoman to be a hypocrite. So sue me. The amounts are moot. She want's Romney to disclose his tax returns but refuses to disclose her own. Again, hypocrisy.

July 10, 2012 at 7:50 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Can you imagine the mess Obama will inherit if he wins reelection? Oh, wait..he'll inherit his own mess. My bad.

July 10, 2012 at 7:59 p.m.

You're omitting them, and that was intentional on your part, because if you actually specifically mention the details, it becomes obvious how feeble your criticism is. So instead you leave that out, and hope we don't notice the details are being overlooked as you try to get the outrage blown up.

Notice how you tried to describe them as a "Swiss Bank Account" which is about as far from the truth as saying because I have a couple Monopoly boardgames I must be a millionaire.

Who is being fraudulent here? Oh yes, you.

She wants the person running for PRESIDENT to disclose his tax returns, if she ever runs for President, then you can criticize her if she doesn't disclose hers. Or if you truly do care that all persons involved in a political campaign disclose their finances, you can make that argument.

No, you don't care, you're just trying to manufacture a controversy. You just want us to get upset over a single person, who had a 401K that had some investments overseas, and acting as if that's a significant act that's in any way comparable to Mitt Romney's financial dealings?

But it's so pathetic an attempt that you really just discredit yourself. Thank you, the more you do things like this, the more I'm convinced to not vote for Mitt Romney.

You're almost as good as Chuck Fleischmann's and Weston Wamp's campaign ads which make me sure I won't be voting for either of them. The over-the-top music, the shameless pandering? No doubts left in my mind that a vote for them would be an even worse idea than voting for Basil Marceaux.

July 10, 2012 at 8:02 p.m.
jesse said...

Well i see we got the usual number of the usual drivil here! looks to me like sooner or later you folks would get tired of callin each other bad names! just because you disagree don't mean everybody else is a idjit!

July 10, 2012 at 8:09 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

jesse's gotta point. I pledge to not call anyone a bad name again. Except for Easy.

July 10, 2012 at 8:50 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova....

I've noticed that you omit the words of others in your responses for the purpose of demeaning them. Do you think that people will just read what you edit and not read the full comment you are responding to?

Your most common MO is to construct a strawman in which you charge your opponent with a belief or position they don't have in order to demean them. That is so small and a common tactic of Liberals.

You, like so many Socialists portray Socialism as God's will. However, it is called Godless Socialism for a reason. Socialist governments have killed tens of millions of it subjects. Socialism is a poor replacement for God. Socialist governments like many in Europe have few churches and few who attend.

A Christian is to help and to give to those who are unable to help themselves, not to those who can, but refuse to provide for themselves. Christians help others, Socialist don't. Incredibly Socialists put forth the notion that they are doing the will of God when government takes other people's money and gives it to someone else including themselves. About the only time they mentioned Jesus is to promote Socialism. They want no part of him in their life. They are so phony and blind, oblivious to the fact that they are fooling no one.

July 10, 2012 at 8:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"Your most common MO is to construct a strawman in which you charge your opponent with a belief or position they don't have in order to demean them."

You have just described yourself. You have just labeled someone that is not a Socialist, a Socialist. You do this every single day. Socialist, Marxist, Communist. Those are your go-to hidden insults. No one here is a socialist, marxist or communist. You just like to label liberals that to get an emotional response.

Name the many socialist government in Europe. Please, enlighten us. I bet you can't name 3 current European governments that are socialistic. Heck, I bet you can't name 1.

"A Christian is to help and to give to those who are unable to help themselves, not to those who can, but refuse to provide for themselves."

Help for everyone except for gays, lesbians, women seeking birth control/abortions, a person with that claims any other religion outside of Christianity, anyone that believes in evolution, atheists, etc.

You are so phony and blind, oblivious to the fact that they are fooling no one.

July 10, 2012 at 9:10 p.m.

Let's see, who just constructed a strawman here?

Oh yes, a certain alleged "conservative" who just invented a concept of Socialism in order to attack it.

Not to mention complaining about selectively quoting people, which isn't evident from what I can tell of reading alprova's posts. Can you be specific about what edits you are alleging alprova committed?

It'd be one thing if you were simply opposed to the style (I respect that opposition, I do find it tends to be misleading in discussion), but since I've noticed you use it yourself, I don't feel you can make that criticism honestly, even if your words were meant to cover that rather than the more serious claim of editing the words, such as tderng did.

Or are you just upset that your verses of scripture weren't quoted?

July 10, 2012 at 9:23 p.m.
Reardon said...

Greed IS good -- there is NOTHING wrong with the desire for MORE.

The GREED for a better life is within all of us.

The question is -- is GREED used to HARM or HELP people?

You can separate GREED from damaging another's rights.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

July 10, 2012 at 11:47 p.m.

Greed? I wouldn't use that word to describe simply wanting a better life.

That's desire. Greed is a bit different.

July 10, 2012 at 11:59 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "alprova....I've noticed that you omit the words of others in your responses for the purpose of demeaning them."

What words of yours have I omitted? Your inclusion of scripture in your previous post are not your words.

"Your most common MO is to construct a strawman in which you charge your opponent with a belief or position they don't have in order to demean them. That is so small and a common tactic of Liberals."

You posted every word that I responded to. What other possible meaning to the words, "Capitalism feeds the poor, Socialism creates the poor," could there be, other than the way I took them to mean?

"You, like so many Socialists portray Socialism as God's will. However, it is called Godless Socialism for a reason. Socialist governments have killed tens of millions of it subjects. Socialism is a poor replacement for God. Socialist governments like many in Europe have few churches and few who attend."

You, like most right-wing people, are attempting to thrust your convoluted definition of the word "Socialism" on people who define the word and the concept more purely, who also have the common sense to separate tyranny, which refers to leaders of nations who impose unreasonable acts of imprisonment and murder to control the citizenry of a nation, from Socialism, which in essence, is a strife to assure an equalization of monetary wealth and political power among all people of a nation.

"A Christian is to help and to give to those who are unable to help themselves, not to those who can, but refuse to provide for themselves. Christians help others, Socialist don't."

You used the specific word "poor." People are poor for a great many reasons. Not many people are poor because they "refuse to provide for themselves."

"Incredibly Socialists put forth the notion that they are doing the will of God when government takes other people's money and gives it to someone else including themselves."

I don't want one thin dime of your money. I work for a living. I don't like taxation any more than you do, but I, unlike yourself I suppose, understand the need for a certain amount of income redistribution when evidence exists that enough is not being done to prevent unbridled greed combined with an unrealistic concentration of political power by a very small slice of people within this nation, which has come to define Capitalism in the United States in the year 2012.

"About the only time they mentioned Jesus is to promote Socialism. They want no part of him in their life. They are so phony and blind, oblivious to the fact that they are fooling no one."

You see just what you want to see. You read and believe what you want to read in the Bible too, completely disregarding that which contradicts your chosen value system. I wish I could say that I am surprised.

All I can do is to shake my head and move on.

July 11, 2012 at 1:05 a.m.
alprova said...

Reardon wrote: "Greed IS good -- there is NOTHING wrong with the desire for MORE."

That all depends on what one has, if they are truly greedy.

Greed is defined as: "...an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth and/or power."

If one has more than they need and they desire to have more, then they are being greedy. If they have more than they deserve, and they too have a desire to have more, then they are being greedy too.

"The GREED for a better life is within all of us."

Sorry, but any desire, hope, or strife for a better life for themselves or for their loved ones, is not an act of greed.

People who consider "a better life" to be defined as an accumulation of wealth and possessions, are rather pathetic in my opinion.

Happiness, being surrounded at all times by people who like or love you and whom you like or love, and living in an environment of safety and serenity, are my definitions of "a better life." People who are dirt-poor, who have these things, are far richer than someone with millions in the bank, who lives a miserable existence, worring constantly about how to make or keep more of their money.

"The question is -- is GREED used to HARM or HELP people?"

A person who is greedy, rarely if ever, uses their stash of cash to help anyone, for they never have enough, in their minds, to share with someone else.

"You can separate GREED from damaging another's rights."

I'll wonder for the rest of my life what the heck that is supposed to mean.

"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

If a greedy person though that the baby would cost them a cent that they did not want to part with, that is exactly what they would do with the baby.

July 11, 2012 at 1:27 a.m.

Throw the baby out? When there's people who pay good money for a baby?

That's just wasteful.

July 11, 2012 at 1:37 a.m.
fairmon said...

Would you support a proposal such as this?

The wealthy realize a greater benefit from our tax system that has evolved with favor showing special interest etc. Why not set the progressive rates to a highest rate of 50% and people pay that rate based on their income from any and all sources. No married, single, head of hh categories, no deductions, reductions, incentives, subsides etc. etc. Apply the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid) and even the stupid has a chance of understanding it. Tax filing could be on one page or a post card.

July 11, 2012 at 3:59 a.m.
fairmon said...

I have not been a Romney supporter but apparently he is smart enough to use the system provided by the government to protect his income from higher taxes. I have seen nothing to suggest he has done anything illegal. Maybe his understanding of the system will enable him to address and fix the problems? I had the attitude it doesn't matter between the two who is elected but many of the post here could sway me to vote for Romney.

July 11, 2012 at 4:08 a.m.
fairmon said...

The dollar is gaining against other currencies around the world which means cheaper imports including oil. A stronger dollar is detrimental to those corporations repatriating profits from foreign investments. A strong dollar keeps inflation under control and increases the buying power of those working in America.

July 11, 2012 at 4:16 a.m.
shen said...

Well, at least you know who these super wealthy politicians real God is. MONEY!

God, Jesus, Bible, Patriotism, County are just a means to an end.

July 11, 2012 at 5:23 a.m.
Reardon said...

Al, your definition of greed would label us all as greedy.

And that's the whole problem.

You guys love being arbitrary; defining what is excessive or plenty for everyone else, while willfully or unwillfully ignorant of your own state.

NOW... if you live in the woods... have no running water... poop in a hole in the ground... forgive me.

Otherwise, that's the old "Limousine Liberal" talking. At least admit we're all guilty.

The bottom line it's none (well, it shouldn't be, but too many sniveling weasels think it is) any of your damn business what I do with money I earn (with the assumption I did so honestly and ethically without theft, force, or violating the rights of others).

Think my Porsche is "excessive"? Go f*ck yourself! My excessive greed paid the salaries of plenty of happy Porsche laborers. I did a lot more GOOD than some crybaby wishing the rich would be slapped hard down a few economic notches by arbitrary taxation.

July 11, 2012 at 7:29 a.m.
Sandyvajayjay said...

If you got all the Obama haters on this thread together in a room, I'm guessing there would be 10 teeth between all of them.

July 11, 2012 at 8:18 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Never had a cavity in my life sandhog. How many cavities have YOU got? Less teeth is much better than less brains. Ye of little brain. Obama wants to tax the investors and job creators in a recession. How stupid is that?

July 11, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.
mtngrl said...

Those "job creators" have had their tax cuts for 10 yrs. Where are those jobs?

July 11, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

You are really oblivious.

July 11, 2012 at 9:21 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova....

You asked :

What words of yours have I omitted? Your inclusion of scripture in your previous post are not your words

I noticed that you emphasized "yours." I went back and noticed that I had not included your "You are 100% correct" statement but had only made reference to your admission in my "You agreed with me that your opinion was erroneous but then you took it back" statement.

The fact remains, you stated at 9:46 "You are 100% correct, however, you will have to stand in front of God one day and explain yourself. There will be consequences then, I assure you."

Now you agreed 100% that your previous opinion about me was erroneous and was of no consequence to me. Since I was 100% correct by your own admission you would obviously be taking it back when you state " however, you will have to stand in front of God one day and explain yourself. There will be consequences then, I assure you."

July 11, 2012 at 9:40 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Sandyvajay said: "If you got all the Obama haters on this thread together in a room, I'm guessing there would be 10 teeth between all of them."

Easy321 said: "Toes,

You are really oblivious."

A couple of the more insightful southpaw posts so far today.

July 11, 2012 at 10:02 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova.....

At 8:55 I wrote "Your most common MO is to construct a strawman in which you charge your opponent with a belief or position they don't have in order to demean them. That is so small and a common tactic of Liberals"

This is exactly what you did at 3:40 when you wrote : "Hey...it's no skin off my nose if you don't think that you will indeed have to answer to God for your chosen beliefs"

This is a strawman constructed by you. You are implying that I will stand in judgment before God for false beliefs. And since I had made reference to Socialism earlier in the day, I have to assume this is at least some of the "chosen beliefs" you had in mind. Or was it the belief I have based on the infallible word of God which I reference earlier? :

"My salvation is quite secure for it is Jesus Christ who secures it."

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" Romans 8:1

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” John 10 : 27-30.

July 11, 2012 at 10:12 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "You are implying that I will stand in judgment before God for false beliefs. And since I had made reference to Socialism earlier in the day, I have to assume this is at least some of the "chosen beliefs" you had in mind."

The false belief that I am convinced that you hold is that "people are poor because they refuse to provide for themselves."

Another false belief that I am convinced that you hold is that Socialism, outside of your convoluted definition of the word, is "Godless" in intent.

You further hold the belief that Christians "help" others, and that "Socialists" don't. If Christians, such as yourself, who are in constant turmoil over whether or not any of your taxes are given to the poor in the form of monetary assistance, how exactly do any of you "help" the poor, given that attitude?

You don't give two hoots for anyone who is poor. Your mind is made up that anyone who is poor is there of their own free will.

You made that crystal clear when you wrote, "A Christian is to help and to give to those who are unable to help themselves, not to those who can, but refuse to provide for themselves."

A true Christian doesn't look at someone and make 'book cover' judgements. They understand that God will sort it out. If a Christian has the means to offer assistance, he or she opens up their wallet and gives freely and without pre-conditions or judgments being a part of the equation.

You wrote earlier, "Incredibly Socialists put forth the notion that they are doing the will of God when government takes other people's money and gives it to someone else including themselves."

You begrudge money being taken from you by the Government and possibly being given to the poor. Such a statement tells me that as a person who claims to be a Christian, any voluntary assistance on your part to anyone who is poor is most likely non-existent.

"Or was it the belief I have based on the infallible word of God which I reference earlier?"

You may find this hard to understand, but throwing out Biblical scripture doesn't impress me or convince me of your Christianity.

Words are meaningless, without the courage of your convictions in evidence.

July 11, 2012 at 11:36 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova....

Another strawman you created at 3:40 was :

"If you truly detest offering assistance to the poor, as Jesus did many times without hesitation, then you must hate Jesus himself." This is just awful, for I and no other Christian or Conservative I know detests offering assistance to the poor. In fact it has been documented that Christians and Conservatives are much larger givers than Liberals.

You obviously are unaware that the assistance that Jesus gave to the poor was not monetary. Jesus healed scores of the lame, blind,deaf, sick etc.and even raisd the dead! However his greatest assistance to those in need was the forgiveness of sins- salvation.

July 11, 2012 at 11:55 a.m.
miraweb said...

Mitt not taking a public salary was a good thing. Mitt not showing up for work the last 18 months he was governor was not so honorable. His willingness to say anything to get elected is just sad:

Mitt Romney - June 22, 2005

"No more 'free riding,' if you will, where an individual says: 'I'm not going to pay, even though I can afford it. I'm not going to get insurance, even though I can afford it. I'm instead going to just show up and make the taxpayers pay for me . . . It's the ultimate conservative idea, which is that people have responsibility for their own care, and they don't look to government to take of them if they can afford to take care of themselves."

Full Article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/06/22/romney_eyes_penalties_for_those_lacking_insurance/?page=full

July 11, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.
miraweb said...

With Mitt you can't trust what comes out of his mouth. Fortunately, he does have a record to look at.

The ultra-conservative Club for Growth (a project of the Heritage Foundation) wrote a white paper on Mitt Romney. Sorry for the length.

It is a pretty decent analysis of what Mitt does, rather than what Mitt says:

Mitt on Taxes

"When Romney was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 through 2007, he had a mixed record on taxes.  During his initial 2002 campaign, Romney refused to sign an anti-tax pledge, but he pledged to balance the budget without raising taxes and touted his fulfillment of that pledge throughout his term.  But the details suggest that he broke his verbal commitment.  While it is true that Governor Romney did not impose any broad-based tax hikes despite pressure from liberal special interests and an inherited budget deficit, he imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax “loophole” closures, together with spending cuts, in order to eliminate the budget gap.

"The largest of these was $259 million worth of fee hikes in FY 2004, the bulk of which came from higher Registry of Deeds fees.   Smaller fee hikes, including higher charges for boaters and golfers, were imposed in FY 2003  and FY 2005.   Romney also sought $128 million worth of so-called tax loophole closures for FY 2004;  $70 million for FY 2005;  and $170 million for FY 2006, which were later reduced to $85 million due to a backlash from business leaders.

Mitt on the Bush Tax Cuts

"In 2003, the Governor refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts, earning the praise of Massachusetts liberal congressman Barney Frank,  and was even open to a federal gas tax hike.   His strident opposition to the flat tax is most curious and difficult to explain since Romney wasn’t a political candidate at the time. In 1996, he ran a series of newspaper ads in Boston, New Hampshire, and Iowa denouncing the 17% flat tax proposed by then presidential candidate Steve Forbes as a “tax cut for fat cats.”   In 2007, Romney continued to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax “unfair.”

"In late 2009, the year after his run for president, Romney wrote an article outlining a 10-point plan to boost the economy.  It included pro-growth tax policy ideas like blocking the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but most of the suggested tax cuts were temporary, which would have provided little spur to long-term growth.

July 11, 2012 at 12:24 p.m.
miraweb said...

Mitt on SubPrime Mortgages "A few months before the financial crisis hit in 2008, Romney was already advocating big government solutions.  He supported lowering the down payment requirement for “nonprime” borrowers, allowing the Federal Housing Administration to help them acquire a house.  He also supported raising the maximum loan amount eligible for FHA insurance so that more people can be served in high-priced areas.

Mitt on Bailouts "Months later, Romney publicly supported the Wall Street bailout, saying, “I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses.”   When the auto bailout was being considered, Romney stated his opposition in a New York Times op-ed with the headline, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”  But this is misleading because he wasn’t 100% opposed to government intervention.  He wrote, “It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition.”

Mitt on Ethanol "Romney recently reiterated his continued support for ethanol subsidies.   And his 2008 campaign platform advocated a “dramatic” increase in “federal spending on research, development, and demonstration projects that hold promise for diversifying our energy supply and increasing our energy efficiency.”   This included research on “fuel technology and materials science and automotive technology” along with “basic research in key technologies like improved energy storage.”

Mitt on Sending Jobs Overseas "At a speech before top technology executives in 2005, Romney encouraged U.S. companies to sell their products abroad, rather than turning toward protectionism: “We must move ahead in technology and patents. I don't like losing any jobs but we'll see new opportunities created selling products there. We'll have a net increase in economic activity, just as we did with free trade. It’s tempting to want to protect our markets and stay closed. But at some point it all comes crashing down and you're hopelessly left behind. Then you are Russia.”

July 11, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
miraweb said...

Mitt on Social Security "Regarding Social Security, Romney’s record remains incomplete. He has ruled out the option of raising Social Security taxes, embraced the idea of reducing the growth rate of future benefits, and supports personal savings accounts, but unfortunately, has not embraced a comprehensive reform plan as of yet.

Mitt on Health Care "But one cannot talk about Romney’s record on entitlement reform without considering the universal healthcare plan Governor Romney helped craft in Massachusetts. The bill that Governor Romney signed with a grinning Ted Kennedy in the background on April 12, 2006.

"Governor Romney still defends his plan five years later while publicly saying as President he would repeal and replace ObamaCare.   But the two plans are similar in at least three significant ways:

•   Both have an individual mandate that requires people to purchase a private good – in this case, health insurance – and levies a financial penalty against those who don’t.

•   Both implement a new government bureaucracy called an “exchange” through which all insurance policies are approved, sold, and heavily regulated.

•   Both have sizeable subsidies for low-income people to purchase the mandated coverage.

"It’s worth noting that the Obama Administration continually points out that ObamaCare was, in a large way, modeled after RomneyCare.  Romney has rightly received much criticism from economic conservatives for the obvious similarities between his plan and President Obama’s command and control plan.

July 11, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
miraweb said...

Mitt on Global Warming "Governor Romney’s regulatory record as governor contains some flaws including a significant one – his support of “global warming” policies. Despite vetoing the Legislature’s minimum wage increase, the Governor is on record supporting indexing the minimum wage to inflation.  

Romney also signed into law a measure banning smoking in the workplace including bars and restaurants (with exemptions for some private clubs);  and implemented “comprehensive ocean zoning reform” that imposed new regulations on ocean front development.

"On climate change, Romney In 2004 unveiled a comprehensive “Climate Protection Plan” that pledged to reduce greenhouse emissions by 25% by 2012.  It would achieve this by doing several things, including an “aggressive” implementation of the California Low Emission Vehicle program, which has standards that are typically more stringent than the EPA’s.  It would also subsidize the upgrade of inefficient oil burners owned by low-income citizens.  Romney said the plan would show Massachusetts’ commitment to implementing the regional climate change plan adopted by several New England states.

"Less than two years later, Romney reversed course.  When he pulled his state out of the New England pact, the late conservative columnist Robert Novak called it the “ungreening of Mitt Romney.”

July 11, 2012 at 12:28 p.m.
miraweb said...

Mitt on PACs and Campaign Finance "Mitt Romney’s position on political free speech has undergone a radical evolution. During his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy, Romney took an outrageous position on campaign finance reform that put him to the left of the current McCain-Feingold legislation, arguing for campaign spending limits—unconstitutional even under Buckley v. Valeo—and the abolition of PACs:

“I personally believe that when campaigns spend the kind of money they’re now spending . . . and to get that kind of money you’ve gotta cozy up as an incumbent to all of the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members, and that kind of relationship has an influence over the way you’re going to vote . . .And for that reason I would like to have campaign spending limits and to say we’re not going to spend more than this in certain campaigns . . . I also would abolish PACS. You probably have one. I don’t like them. I don’t like the influence of money—whether it’s business, labor, or any other group. I do not like that kind of influence . . .”

Mitt's Conservative Cred "He would promote the unwinding of Obama’s bad economic policies, but we also think that Romney is somewhat of a technocrat. After a career in business, quickly finding a “solution” seems to be his goal, even if it means more government intrusion as a means to an end. To this day, Romney supports big government solutions to health care and opposes pro-growth tax code reform – positions that are simply opposite to those supported by true economic conservatives.

Full Whitepaper: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=905

July 11, 2012 at 12:28 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova...

You wrote, "The false belief that I am convinced that you hold is that "people are poor because they refuse to provide for themselves."

I've read very little of what you have written in the past, primarily, but not totally, because you are long winded and arrogant. I have noticed when you address me and I admit that I may have missed a lot of it, you like to parse words, in the hope I guess, that you may feel like you have gotten the upper hand.

However this statement is very broad and strikes me as desperation. False accusations are a trademark of Liberals and characteristic of a childish mind. This false accusation of yours is of no consequence to me, I've heard it all.

July 11, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.

Reardon, it's your definition of greed that seeks to label all of us greedy. It's quite inaccurate though, as you're blurring words to the point where actual meaning is lost.

Alprova's is limited, and yes, despite your blandishments otherwise, we can effectively recognize excess. You are falling into a common philosophical trap that presumes that because no objectively perfect judgments can be made, that all judgments are equally invalid.

It's not actually genuine dialogue, but common sophistry.

And your Porsche example...let's say that those workers weren't well paid, that they were exploited. In other words, what if they weren't happy? Would that not be greed on the part of the person taking the fruits of their labors?

There's a reason why Germany offers a lot of social welfare. Your money for that Porsche is going into their taxes. Horrors.

And yes, we do have business with what you do with your money, besides how you earned it. Why? Because you aren't allowed to do anything and everything either. You can spend your money on crimes too.

Besides, you're forgetting that the reason taxes exist is to pay for things you use, and the reason tax deductions exist is to encourage certain other things. Why so upset at that?

July 11, 2012 at 1:18 p.m.
mymy said...

Obama’s Baggage is coming to the theaters this summer.

“2016 Obama’s America”

Barack Obama’s half-brother, George Obama, is about to make his film debut, and in a feature-length documentary that is critical of the president, no less.

The focus of the movie, though, is the alleged anger at colonialism that President Obama inherited from his (and George’s) father.

As D’Souza puts it in the book: “This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”

Listen to all to hear the definition of colonialism in re to this country.

http://5ptsalt.com/2012/02/28/movie-trailer-obama-america-in-2016/

July 11, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mymy said...

http://5ptsalt.com/2012/02/28/movie-trailer-obama-america-in-2016/

Thank you for that. That is one movie I will certainly make a point of seeing this summer.

July 11, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.
Leaf said...

According to the Pope, greed is one of the seven deadly sins. One of the sins that automatically punches your ticket to Hell, if you believe in that kind of thing. So, to simplify, if you think greed is good, the Catholic church believes you will burn in Hell.

Most Mormons (and the original Plymouth Pilgrims - see Protestant Work Ethic), however, believe that earthly riches and power are a sign of Heavenly approval. (Not a prerequisite, but an indication.) Mormons still wouldn't say greed is good, but there is definitely no stigma attached to wealth. That's one reason so many of them excel in business and support each other through a patronage system. Mormons believe that Mitt Romney will be elevated to godhood after his death and will get his own planet to rule.

I just think the dichotomy is interesting. I'm not judging either viewpoint.

July 11, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

"Mormons believe that Mitt Romney will be elevated to godhood after his death and will get his own planet to rule."

LEAF: Where in hayel did that come from?

July 11, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Troll,

That is one of the Mormon beliefs about the afterlife.

"In Mormonism, the goal of each adherent is to achieve "exaltation" via the atonement of Jesus, as a result of which they inherit all the attributes of God the Father, including godhood. Mormons believe that these people will become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, and will have "all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge."

"Mormon cosmology teaches that the Earth is not unique, but just one of many inhabited planets, each planet created for the purpose of bringing about the immortality and "eternal life" (i.e., the highest degree of salvation) of humanity. These worlds were, according to doctrine, created by Jesus. Mormon leaders and theologians have taught that these inhabitants are similar or identical to humans, and that they are subject to the Atonement of Jesus."

Do some research next time, Troll.

July 11, 2012 at 2:29 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova....

You wrote, "Another false belief that I am convinced that you hold is that Socialism, outside of your convoluted definition of the word, is "Godless" in intent".

What? I can only address your concrete '"Godless" in intent."'

Well, many have noticed just that. The many Socialist who comment here certainly "intend" to remove God from our society. Socialists practice Godlessness. They largely don't attend worship services, seldom if ever read the Bible, abuse drugs and alcohol, are promiscuous, lie, cheat and steal and let's don't forget, even avow that they are atheists. They live without God's control in their lives and live as though they will not stand before God in judgment.

Socialists want GOVERNMENT to supply their wants and needs. They "intend" to have a Socialist society. They live contrary to God's will. They may profess a belief in God but it is a philosophical god they invented in their depraved mind. It is a false god.

July 11, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy321 AKA little pipsqueak. Have you ever had an original thought or post that was not cut and pasted? You read a wicky about Mormonism, thus now you're a theologian. Grow up, junior.

July 11, 2012 at 2:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"...abuse drugs and alcohol, are promiscuous, lie, cheat and steal."

This could be about anyone or any group of people.

Just to clarify, you worship a false god as well.

July 11, 2012 at 2:35 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jackie_Troller,

Have you ever heard of doing research and NOT looking like a dumbass? And yes, I have had several original thoughts just today.

I never claimed to be a theologian. But I do know how to find and read information unlike yourself. You're the only person I've ever come across that resents information and facts.

By the way, it's Wiki, not wicky. Get it right, pecker lips.

Grow up, geezer.

July 11, 2012 at 2:39 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

wiki then. you should know, toddler

July 11, 2012 at 2:44 p.m.

Easy, no, no, only the Godless Socialists have any flaws or failings.

All of the Christians are fine upstanding puritans who never ever ever do wrong.

Haven't you been reading about Dominionism lately? They are the blessed and chosen of God, whatever they do is truly righteous.

It's not arrogance though, it's the humility of knowing that God would let them do no wrong.

July 11, 2012 at 2:45 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack O'Troll,

You wouldn't know, you old goat.

July 11, 2012 at 2:55 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova....

You wrote "You further hold the belief that Christians "help" others, and that "Socialists" don't. If Christians, such as yourself, who are in constant turmoil over whether or not any of your taxes are given to the poor in the form of monetary assistance, how exactly do any of you "help" the poor, given that attitude?

I have been around Socialists/Liberals all of my life and I can testify they are selfish and stingy. However, they are all for government taking other people's money and giving it to anyone including themselves. They love to speak of helping the poor as long as they believe someone else is doing the helping. They could care less about waste, fraud and abuse.

There are those who through no fault of their own can find themselves in need and government can help them until they are able to provide for themselves. However, this function by the federal government is not Constitutional, the law of the land. These services should be provided by state and local governments in accordance with the Constitution, the law of the land. They can best determine who is truly in need and who is scamming the taxpayer.

July 11, 2012 at 3:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"I have been around Socialists/Liberals all of my life and I can testify they are selfish and stingy. However, they are all for government taking other people's money and giving it to anyone including themselves. They love to speak of helping the poor as long as they believe someone else is doing the helping. They could care less about waste, fraud and abuse."

I have a feeling this entire paragraph is a complete fabrication. And you have managed to create a false liberal stereotype. Talk about a straw man!

July 11, 2012 at 3:12 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "This is just awful, for I and no other Christian or Conservative I know detests offering assistance to the poor. In fact it has been documented that Christians and Conservatives are much larger givers than Liberals."

Two things: 1.) You have indeed declared that you detest assisting the poor, through the payment of taxes that may be used for that purpose, and; 2.) Absent from your declaration is any claim that you give anything to anyone...ever.

There may well be a very good reason why Liberals do not declare on a tax return to be charitable, but who still walk with Jesus. I urge you to read a very specific and applicable verse of scripture: Matthew 6:1-2

"You obviously are unaware that the assistance that Jesus gave to the poor was not monetary. Jesus healed scores of the lame, blind,deaf, sick etc.and even raisd the dead! However his greatest assistance to those in need was the forgiveness of sins- salvation."

And you claim to know the Bible...

Matthew 19:16-30, Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 3:10-11, Luke 6:38, Luke 14:13, Luke 18:18-30, Luke 21:1-4, Mark 6:30-44, Mark 8:1-13, Mark 10:17-31, Romans 12:6-8, Leviticus 19:9-10, Isaiah 58:10-11, 1 John 3:17, Proverbs 28:27

If those are not enough to convince you that your claim is in error, here are some more;

Leviticus 25:35, Deuteronomy 14:28-29, Deuteronomy 15:7-11, Isaiah 58:6-7, Psalms 41:1-3, Proverbs 11:25, 19:17, 22:9, Matthew 5:42, 6:1-4, 19:21, 25:31-46, Luke 6:38, 11:41, 12:33-34, Acts 20:35, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 12:27-31, 13:1-13, 2 Corinthians 9:6-7, Galatians 2:10, Ephesians 4:7-12, 1 Timothy 5:16, 6:17-19, Hebrews 13:3, 13:16, James 1:27, 2:2-9, 2:15-16, 1 John 3:17-18

July 11, 2012 at 3:23 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "alprova...You wrote, "The false belief that I am convinced that you hold is that "people are poor because they refuse to provide for themselves.""

"I've read very little of what you have written in the past, primarily, but not totally, because you are long winded and arrogant. I have noticed when you address me and I admit that I may have missed a lot of it, you like to parse words, in the hope I guess, that you may feel like you have gotten the upper hand."

"However this statement is very broad and strikes me as desperation. False accusations are a trademark of Liberals and characteristic of a childish mind. This false accusation of yours is of no consequence to me, I've heard it all."

False accusation? You made it clear that you resent paying taxes that may be given to the poor, whom you feel do not deserve such money, because you consider it wrong to take money from you and given to others, and you made it rather clear that people are poor because they "refuse to provide for themselves."

Did you or did you not express those two points?

Nothing false in my accusations, and you've done little thus far to refute them.

I'm very clear and careful what I type, for good reason. I do so because I do not desire to have to continously clarify points that I make.

July 11, 2012 at 3:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

That is a localized study. It only applies to northern Europe. The article is trying to spin it and apply it globally. That's not how science works. The original study credited the early climate to changes in tilt and orbital elongation, which is not mentioned in the article. Here is the study:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

This article proves very little. It gives us a little more insight into how the climate has fluctuated in northern Europe over time but it has no global implications. Studies like these would have to be done all over the world in order to apply the findings to the entire Earth. But this study, in no way, debunks or disproves global warming.

You, sir, are the idiot. You have ignored all the science and facts. All of it points to man-made global warming. And you pull out one tiny article that tried to spin the study into a refutation of global warming. More misinformation and lies from the Right! Thanks again dumbass.

July 11, 2012 at 3:41 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova....

You wrote, "You don't give two hoots for anyone who is poor. Your mind is made up that anyone who is poor is there of their own free will."

Another strawman, another lie and is of no consequence to me, I have heard it all before.

July 11, 2012 at 3:51 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "alprova....You wrote, "Another false belief that I am convinced that you hold is that Socialism, outside of your convoluted definition of the word, is "Godless" in intent"."

"What? I can only address your concrete '"Godless" in intent."'"

"Well, many have noticed just that. The many Socialist who comment here certainly "intend" to remove God from our society."

You do love combining people of one group into other groups, don't you? Are you now claiming that Athiests are Socialists? Is it your intention to claim that everyone who is Liberal is a Socialist and an Atheist too?

Your arguments are fast approaching the absurd.

"Socialists practice Godlessness. They largely don't attend worship services, seldom if ever read the Bible, abuse drugs and alcohol, are promiscuous, lie, cheat and steal and let's don't forget, even avow that they are atheists."

There it is folks. Sir, with all due respect, your shoving right-wing brand of McCarthyism down my throat, and I respectfully reject it.

I assure you that my tendencies toward Socialism are not Godless, not in conjunction with any abuse of alcohol, drugs, nor am I promsicuous. I don't lie, cheat, steal, and I am most certainly not an Atheist.

What you just typed could be construed to be a direct insult to every Liberal who participates in this forum. Anyone who is an Atheist could take insult at it too. Others who believe, as I do, in the need for a society that mixes Socialism with Capitalism, might take offense to your words as well.

But you know what? I'm hardly offended. I instead, laugh at your suggestions. They are ludicrous.

"They live without God's control in their lives and live as though they will not stand before God in judgment."

Is that so?

"Socialists want GOVERNMENT to supply their wants and needs."

My concerns are not for myself. But I recognize the simple fact that the needs for many poor people of this nation are nowhere near met by private charities, and if the poor were to have to depend on Churches to step up to the plate, the vast majority would starve to death or be walking the streets.

I always follow such a statement with the recongnition that for sure, there are indeed people out there who receive assistance from the Government that they do not deserve, but it is far better that some get away with it, than for one truly needy person to be denied assistance.

"They "intend" to have a Socialist society. They live contrary to God's will. They may profess a belief in God but it is a philosophical god they invented in their depraved mind. It is a false god."

You are a lost cause and you are wrapped in a cocoon of self-righteousness.

July 11, 2012 at 4:02 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: Is there no limit as to how many ways you can show your azz on this forum?

July 11, 2012 at 4:15 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Apparently, I am supposed to be more outraged by what Mitt Romney does with his money than by what Obama does with mine.

Facebook.com/BeingConservative

July 11, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
Leaf said...

I am convinced that BigRidge Patriot is a shill for the coal industry. He constantly beats the drum for climate change denial and consistently uses the same talking points and marginal sources for his "information". Also he interjects his off-topic junk science into any debate no matter the topic at hand.

I think from now on I'll give BRP's drivel the same amount of respect I give to emails from internet drug companies and Nigerian princes.

That is all. Carry on.

July 11, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Troll_Dennis,

I don't know what you mean, Troll. Are you mad??

July 11, 2012 at 4:17 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

furious

July 11, 2012 at 4:20 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova...

You wrote "you don't give two hoots for anyone who is poor. Your mind is made up that anyone who is poor is there of their own free will."

"You made that crystal clear when you wrote, "A Christian is to help and to give to those who are unable to help themselves, not to those who can, but refuse to provide for themselves."'

And who disagrees with that second paragraph? This is common sense. Furthermore, I don't believe even you believe what you wrote. If I, who am able bodied were to refuse to provide for myself , go fishing everyday instead and lived the life of Riley, would you fund my lifestyle and provide for me?

Let's see how far you will go to keep this charade up. Unbelievable!

July 11, 2012 at 4:26 p.m.

BigRidgePatriot, in case you haven't noticed, Mitt Romney has asked us to vote for him based on his qualities as a businessman.

Are we supposed to just take him at his word and not want to look into it?

He's been vague enough with his plans that we certainly can't figure out their details, so what else can we do?

Reminds me of the political ads from Weston Wamp. All sizzle and no substance.

But sure you can look at what Obama has done. The problem is looking at it honestly, a quality that has been lacking from Republicans and Romney.

He even lied about the number of ships in the Navy.

July 11, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "alprova....You wrote "You further hold the belief that Christians "help" others, and that "Socialists" don't. If Christians, such as yourself, who are in constant turmoil over whether or not any of your taxes are given to the poor in the form of monetary assistance, how exactly do any of you "help" the poor, given that attitude?"

"I have been around Socialists/Liberals all of my life and I can testify they are selfish and stingy. However, they are all for government taking other people's money and giving it to anyone including themselves. They love to speak of helping the poor as long as they believe someone else is doing the helping. They could care less about waste, fraud and abuse."

It must be a beotch having to hang around a bunch of "selfish and stingy" Socialists/Liberals all the time. It must be your conservative magnetism that attracts them to you.

"There are those who through no fault of their own can find themselves in need and government can help them until they are able to provide for themselves."

Ah...a breath of fresh air has entered the room.

"However, this function by the federal government is not Constitutional, the law of the land."

And you just farted.

"These services should be provided by state and local governments in accordance with the Constitution, the law of the land."

You're talking in circles.

"They can best determine who is truly in need and who is scamming the taxpayer."

Let's put this into terms of what it costs you, personally.

Currently, every dollar you pay into the Federal Government goes to fund about 60% of the expenses that the Government spends to keep this country humming along. The rest is borrowed.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know. Another subject for another day.

Ten cents of every dollar that the Government spends, goes to support the poor, through social programs. Your paid portion is about 6 cents out of every dollar.

Now, I don't know what you earn, your family size, or what you put away for retirement, but let's just throw out a figure of $5,000 per year that you may pay in taxes every year to the IRS.

This translates into about $300 per year of money that may, and I do reiterate may find its way into the pockets of someone who is gaming the welfare system.

Do you really think that you are justified in being indignant over a couple of weeks worth of food going to someone who may not deserve it?

Those that resemble the sloth will stand in front of God one day and they will answer for their deeds, just as you and I will.

I choose to ignore such things and to pay my taxes willingly and without any thought to how they are spent. Because when it comes right down to it, scammers are par for the course, and there's little you or I can do about them.

You risk getting an ulcer over it, whereas I have a cast iron stomach and can eat practically anything without so much as a burp.

Que Sera, Sera...

July 11, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova.....

You wrote : "A true Christian doesn't look at someone and make 'book cover' judgments. They understand that God will sort it out. If a Christian has the means to offer assistance, he or she opens up their wallet and gives freely and without pre-conditions or judgments being a part of the equation."

I think you have stumbled on some truth! I'd have to subtract the "book cover" and "part of the equation" though, seems like Liberal gibberish. But in general you have agreed with what I have already written.

Congratulations, and thank you for not even bringing Socialist government up as the means to help others in need.

July 11, 2012 at 5:13 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "alprova...You wrote "you don't give two hoots for anyone who is poor. Your mind is made up that anyone who is poor is there of their own free will.""

""You made that crystal clear when you wrote, "A Christian is to help and to give to those who are unable to help themselves, not to those who can, but refuse to provide for themselves."'"

"And who disagrees with that second paragraph? This is common sense. Furthermore, I don't believe even you believe what you wrote. If I, who am able bodied were to refuse to provide for myself , go fishing everyday instead and lived the life of Riley, would you fund my lifestyle and provide for me?"

How do you determine, on the spot if you will, that someone who presents themselves in front of you, is "living the life of Riley" or is "refusing to provide for themselves?"

Do you automatically assume that a man holding a sign at the end of an off-ramp of the Interstate, is a scam artist, or do you throw him a buck or two? If you see an obvious homeless person on the street, do you look them in the eye, or do you routinely avoid eye contact and breeze on by?

If you happen to be in line behind a person of color in the grocery store, or someone who shares your skin color for that matter, who whips out an EBT card to pay for their food, and you later see them loading their groceries into a vehicle that may be newer or nicer than the one that you own, do you automatically make a snap judgment that they are scamming the Government, or do you mull over the possibility that the vehicle may be borrowed?

Do you pass by any of the local housing projects in the area, observe people sitting on their porches or walking along the sidewalks, and silently make the assumption that all those people have no job whatsoever, or do you ever consider that they might work nights?

When you pass people in other, working class neighborhoods inhabited by people in lower income classes, sitting on their porches or walking down their streets, do you have the same conversation with yourself about them?

Your statements thus far, betray an underlying or firm belief that all poor people are in their particular circumstance because they have not done as you have done for yourself.

The only problem is that you have not walked in their shoes. There exists a list a mile long that would refute any assumption that people are poor "for refusing to provide for themselves."

July 11, 2012 at 5:59 p.m.

Many of the homeless are mentally ill AND military veterans.

But I've noticed a lot of people who still believe mental illness is a problem of character.

July 11, 2012 at 6:01 p.m.
alprova said...

"alprova...You wrote : "A true Christian doesn't look at someone and make 'book cover' judgments. They understand that God will sort it out. If a Christian has the means to offer assistance, he or she opens up their wallet and gives freely and without pre-conditions or judgments being a part of the equation.""

"I think you have stumbled on some truth! I'd have to subtract the "book cover" and "part of the equation" though, seems like Liberal gibberish. But in general you have agreed with what I have already written."

Not even close. Your belief and the extent of your willingness to assist the poor is dependant on an estimation that they deserve assistance. I make no such estimations.

"Congratulations, and thank you for not even bringing Socialist government up as the means to help others in need."

I'm absolutely on board with every one of the social programs that the Government distributes funds to. I am totally on board with the President's proposal to raise the top-tier tax rates to where they were prior to GWB cutting them in 2001. I am of the firm belief that so long as we do tax income, that all types of income should be taxed at the same rates. Thus, income derived from investments should never be taxed at a lower rate.

I would prefer to see our entire system of taxation changed to one that taxes what one spends, rather than what one earns, but I hold no hope that I will live long enough to see this come to pass. Our politicians are still too in love with playing political football with the tax rates to obtain votes, and it still works in their favor to play that game, doesn't it?

July 11, 2012 at 6:20 p.m.
alprova said...

Mitt got his hand slapped today by the NAACP..

July 11, 2012 at 6:25 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Ahhhhhh...to be taxed on what I spend rather than what I earn... if there was ever a plan to encourage savings, frugal living, etc...

July 11, 2012 at 6:25 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova.....

You accused me of this "You begrudge money being taken from you by the Government and possibly being given to the poor."

That could either be a lie or another erroneous opnion on your part.

I begrudge the unconstitutional role of the federal government for dolling out other people's money to others, why don't you, it is the law of the land? Constitutionally, this would be the role of the states if they decided to do so. The Free Press has noted this and written about this for the over 35 years that I have been reading it.

And then, "Such a statement tells me that as a person who claims to be a Christian, any voluntary assistance on your part to anyone who is poor is most likely non-existent."

When you figure that one out, let me know.

July 11, 2012 at 6:31 p.m.
328Kwebsite said...

I thought it was a good cartoon. Except I think we could have used a stronger message about the use of UK trusts as offshore tax shelters. Some would argue that private banking in Switzerland died a couple of years ago. Good illustration on those stickers. Almost could have skipped that caption on the image. Score: 3/5.

I look forward to seeing President Obama get re-elected. The cold reality is that the Republican Party failed to groom a candidate fit for office. Look at the Presidents they've had elected since World War II. All of them were slowly brought up through the system to have a strong background to qualify them for President. This year, that's not the case. They're trying the governor crap shoot, which is usually reserved for Democratic Party's chaotic process.

The massive sums of money? Unreliable. Look at the Carly and Meg Whitman campaigns in California. Voters smell a rat when it's obvious that the rich are paying their way into government. With Romney's lopsided support, those big bucks might turn into a weakness if the average voter perceives that it doesn't pass the stink test.

Tying big sums of money to Romney as baggage is accurate. This is one of the few times in national politics that having too much money might be the wrong kind of big deal.

July 11, 2012 at 6:46 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al said "Mitt got his hand slapped today by the NAACP.." and then provided a 26 second video clip where Romney was booed when he said he would repeal Obama Care. What you failed to mnention Al is that according to Tim Stanley of The Telegraph is that Romney received a standing ovation from the NAACP crowd at the end of his speech.

"It wasn’t quite a game changer, but Mitt Romney finally gave voters a moment of magic in his NAACP convention speech this Wednesday. For once, style and content rose to the occasion. He even earned himself a standing ovation from a civil rights lobby – a big win for a Republican candidate."

Once again the full story would not support the main stream medias agenda so they give a 26 second sound bite to make Romneylook bad and Al fell for it.

Once again Al only presents what he wants as facts.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100170361/mitt-romneys-take-a-look-challenge-to-the-naacp-was-his-first-real-moment-of-campaign-magic/

July 11, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rick,

Romney did look bad when he made that statement. ALPROVA presented facts. No one fell for anything.

July 11, 2012 at 7:23 p.m.

lkeithlu, and to take money away from those who have to spend, while those who can sock most of their money away have even less reason to spend it.

Pass on discouraging people from spending. Hiding your money under the bed isn't a good way to use it. Even banks know money isn't useful if you can't use it. They just use it in a few ways that test the limits.

conservative, you've failed to nuance your remarks with a specific limitation solely towards the federal government. Your opposition has been far from solely being towards the institution doing it, and entirely towards the existence of it as your own words indicate you resent the abuse of the system by those you have expressed disdain for being lazy.

Or would you care to look over your words just in this section? I would bother to quote them, but I'm sure alprova will do it anyway, so I'll just ask you to do it yourself and explain why you said what you didn't mean.

328Kwebsite, but let's hope they don't buy the ballot boxes. Or the ballot counters.

rick1, you call it a standing ovation? Why? Was there clapping? Sure. Did people stand? I suppose, but maybe they were just being polite. Perhaps it was not at all the rousing endorsement you (and the rest of the right-wing blogosphere) would have us believe it to have been.

Maybe you're the one with an agenda who is pushing a narrative. Or is it just a coincidence that this same message is getting pushed across the right-wing boards?

BTW, did you notice who is reading from a teleprompter:

Commence your excuse making as those anti-Obama teleprompter comments suddenly aren't applicable to your own man.

July 11, 2012 at 7:35 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova.....

You wrote, "You may find this hard to understand, but throwing out Biblical scripture doesn't impress me or convince me of your Christianity."

I haven't been trying to impress you, that is another erroneous opinion on your part. However, you should be impressed by Scripture for it is the word of God and being flippant about the word of God is a serious matter.

I'm sure you have been convicted by those Scripture verses I have provided you because :

"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12"

Furthermore, I don't need or request your approval for my Christianity,your arrogance is noticeable, nor do I need or have I tried to convince you of my Christianity.

July 11, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.

conservative: If you haven't been trying to make an impression on alprova, or anybody else, to persuade them to your views, what have you been trying to accomplish?

What is the purpose of your words?

But actually, you've just shown your own arrogance, because you are quite proud that you don't have to justify your Christianity, when you've been proclaiming it quite heavily. You're really not a humble Christian who quietly and nobly goes about in a virtuous way that doesn't have to demonstrate it, but been trying to make yourself out to be better. Even your false humility here does it.

Sorry, but you're not what you're trying to make yourself out to be.

July 11, 2012 at 7:46 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Romney showed stones today. Win any votes? Maybe not, but I suspect he won some respect.

July 11, 2012 at 7:46 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrotre: "Al said "Mitt got his hand slapped today by the NAACP.." and then provided a 26 second video clip where Romney was booed when he said he would repeal Obama Care. What you failed to mnention Al is that according to Tim Stanley of The Telegraph is that Romney received a standing ovation from the NAACP crowd at the end of his speech."

So what? It's very traditional for an audience to applaud a great acting performance.

Do you think any votes were changed based on that speech?

""It wasn’t quite a game changer, but Mitt Romney finally gave voters a moment of magic in his NAACP convention speech this Wednesday. For once, style and content rose to the occasion. He even earned himself a standing ovation from a civil rights lobby – a big win for a Republican candidate.""

"A moment of magic." That's funny.

"Once again the full story would not support the main stream medias agenda so they give a 26 second sound bite to make Romneylook bad and Al fell for it."

I didn't fall for a thing. I watched his speech live. A polite and receptive audience does not translate into an audience that magically was transformed into a supportive audience.

"Once again Al only presents what he wants as facts."

It WAS the highlight of his speech, was it not? He should have been keenly aware that particular line would not be received well by that group, and the smirk on his face while he was being booed, proves that he offered it intentionally and that the reaction he received was expected.

July 11, 2012 at 7:50 p.m.

Jack_Dennis, well he was certainly pandering to the Republican Base.

Guess he's not quite ready to shake up the Etch-a-Sketch.

alprova, yep, he went to the mountain, so he could tell all his follows he went up and gave it a good swift kick. Or something.

July 11, 2012 at 7:56 p.m.
Reardon said...

No, Numbnuts, the point is my money and my earnings, earned WITHOUT depriving ANYONE of their rights, are not subject to your arbitrary feelings about HOW it should be dispensed.

Name what moral code of yours has sanction over the earnings I sacrificed for and at what arbitrary level it should be forcibly removed from me for some supposed "good cause."

Charity, welfare? Is true charity taken at gunpoint?

At what limit is my effort a slave to your whimsical desires?

And no, I'm not against taxes -- I'm against stupid, parasitic taxation laws that go by arbitrary standards, based on some stupid belief that high achievers somehow deserve to serve the State more than the moochers that live off them.

July 11, 2012 at 8:14 p.m.
tderng said...

I sure wouldn't expect Obama to go into an event that he knew in advance would be hostile to his policies. He has to have sycophants to keep his ego stroked. He gets visually angry when he is asked even a semi-hard question by an interviewer.

July 11, 2012 at 8:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Tderng,

"He gets visually angry when he is asked even a semi-hard question by an interviewer."

Please provide proof.

July 11, 2012 at 8:34 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al earlier you said "If one has more than they need and they desire to have more, then they are being greedy. If they have more than they deserve, and they too have a desire to have more, then they are being greedy too."

Al one time you said you lived on 28 acres. Is that being greedy? Do you need 28 acres?

July 11, 2012 at 8:45 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al,said "I didn't fall for a thing. I watched his speech live. A polite and receptive audience does not translate into an audience that magically was transformed into a supportive audience."

So you knew Romney received a standing ovation and yet misrepresented this fact. So much for all of the praise you give yourself on speaking and presenting the truth.

bulbs, read the link I provided to the article then you will know who said it was a standing ovation.

July 11, 2012 at 8:55 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "alprova...You wrote, "You may find this hard to understand, but throwing out Biblical scripture doesn't impress me or convince me of your Christianity.""

"I haven't been trying to impress you, that is another erroneous opinion on your part. However, you should be impressed by Scripture for it is the word of God and being flippant about the word of God is a serious matter."

You are convinced that every sentence contained in the Bible is the "word of God." Proving that is impossible, but I'll set that aside for the moment. Given that thousands of people have had their hands in the translation of the Bible, each of whom most assuredly interpreted scripture according to their personal beliefs, add to this the fact that the Church of England radically overhauled the Bible during the 1600's, and there is about a zero percent chance that very much of the Bible we read today resembles the Bible that once existed, much less it being the word of God.

But, please feel free to believe whatever you wish, for it has been drummed into your head, where your God given brain has remained stuck in park.

"Furthermore, I don't need or request your approval for my Christianity,your arrogance is noticeable, nor do I need or have I tried to convince you of my Christianity."

Well...guess what? The Government doesn't need or request your approval or care one whit what you consider to be Unconstitutional. They will continue to assist the poor in your stead with your taxes. You're helping the poor whether you agree with it or not.

I truly feel sorry for people like you. You are completely brainwashed, and you are totally convinced of your own self-righteousness.

I may well come across as being arrogant, and maybe I am, but I try every day to emulate Christ in my attitudes towards others, and I'm sorry, but I am thoroughly convinced that your heart is as hard as stone, and your political leanings are totally contrary to the examples we as Christians are supposed to follow.

July 11, 2012 at 8:58 p.m.

Reardon, well, if you add the qualifier "arbitrary" I suppose that's true. Nobody supports arbitrary laws.

Your "money" is, however, subject to a number of reasoned considerations that have been determined to be at least a valid purpose and some rationale. You may not agree with them, but they do exist. And yes, the laws and regulations of society DO have authority over you, you are subject to them, and if you consider yourself a sovereign citizen, then that's your mistake. You do tread very closely to that with your hyperbolic rhetoric.

But nobody's considering your tax payments that go to welfare to be actual "noble" charity, then again some people don't think that any charity for which you take any credit or benefit is actual true charity.

So what? The purpose is not for you to have some virtue because of it, but to solve another need, that of society as a whole. Nor are the laws as arbitrary and capricious as you declaim, nor are the people who receive the benefits of welfare necessarily moochers. Some may be, and while I can understand some concern over that (though I think you misdirect your efforts since the real moochers are the ones who take millions and billions while pretending to do work), the true picture is that most of the people receiving welfare fall into three groups:

Children. Senior Citizens. The Disabled. You just want us to get outraged and believed all there is are some lazy leeches and that there's no systems in place to control it, while ignoring the people who do receive the benefits.

You can, of course, make your arguments about how things are done. This is a representative government, and you have a right to make your arguments. Even if your arguments are ridiculous. Of course, the rest of us get to ignore you for the ranting Numbnut you are.

As for the limits of taxation, I think it'd be arbitrary to make a commitment to that now, but I certainly agree you should enjoy the benefits of your labor. Here's the thing, your benefits also come from a host of other things you receive, to an extent which is so far been impossible to accurately calculate for a given individual.

tderng, he already did. It was called the State of the Union address. Several of them. Only one of them has been explicitly disrupted though.

But hey, have you noticed that Mitt Romney tends not to answer questions at all? He just blathers on with some vague statements and pretends he answered it.

rick1: The real problem is that you want us to believe it was a rousing endorsement of some kind. That's what has been going across the right-wing blogosphere lately.

Why would you be trying to push that? What's your agenda? Oh yes, to make us think it was somehow a much beloved speech, as opposed to standing and thanking Mitt Romney for being there without being an endorsement for him leaving.

Perhaps it's like one of those cartoons when the bad performer is cheered when the act ends.

July 11, 2012 at 9:05 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova :

You wrote at 3:23pm : "Two things: 1.) You have indeed declared that you detest assisting the poor, through the payment of taxes that may be used for that purpose,"

Those are YOUR inflammatory words not mine. I have stated many times what the proper role of the federal government is according to the Constitution. It is not to funnel other people's money to you or me or anyone else. This is my position and the position of millions of others ( others who expressed their view in the mid term election, I might add ) and the position of the Free Press for at least the 35 years plus I have been reading it.

Under your logic you could just as easily state that I "detest" giving a house to a poor family at taxpayer's expense because you believe that is what the federal government should do.

July 11, 2012 at 9:17 p.m.

conservative, if your objections are simply to the federalization of the process, you've really failed to make that the focus of your disapproval.

You may wish to re-examine your words as I suggested. I certainly cannot discern where you expect us to get the idea that your objections were based on which particular government was involved.

You certainly expressed a great deal of other concerns, but not that one.

July 11, 2012 at 9:19 p.m.
mymy said...

Easy123 said...

Tderng,

"He gets visually angry when he is asked even a semi-hard question by an interviewer."

Please provide proof.

Easy: If you every watched any real news you would have seen the reports on it.

July 11, 2012 at 9:30 p.m.
alprova said...

rick 1 wrote: "Al earlier you said "If one has more than they need and they desire to have more, then they are being greedy. If they have more than they deserve, and they too have a desire to have more, then they are being greedy too.""

"Al one time you said you lived on 28 acres. Is that being greedy? Do you need 28 acres?"

The key determination as to whether or not someone is being greedy, is any desire to have more. I never wanted or desired all of the land that I owned. I bought all that land very cheap in 1995, and it was a package deal. All or none. So I bought it all, even though I didn't want or desire to have that much land.

I sold 25 acres last November. I used the proceeds from that sale to start my business.

I fenced two of the three acres I kept for livestock. Six weeks ago, I leased those two acres to the same family that purchased the 25 acres from me, as they are big into horses.

So, now all I have to look after is a one acre plot that my home sits on. It's a big relief, let me tell you. I cut my grass in about an hour these days. It used to take me 18 hours a week to maintain my property.

July 11, 2012 at 9:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Mymy,

Then why can't you provide proof?

Fox isn't real news by the way. Just so you're aware.

July 11, 2012 at 9:41 p.m.
alprova said...

risk1 wrote: "Al,said "I didn't fall for a thing. I watched his speech live. A polite and receptive audience does not translate into an audience that magically was transformed into a supportive audience.""

"So you knew Romney received a standing ovation and yet misrepresented this fact. So much for all of the praise you give yourself on speaking and presenting the truth."

I didn't misrepresent a doggone thing. The man got booed and I thought it was funny.

I wasn't even aware that the audience had given him a standing ovation.

What difference does it make what happened when he was finished? He still received the boos during his speech.

You're going just a little off the deep end with this one.

Sheesh.

July 11, 2012 at 9:43 p.m.
mymy said...

Obama's class warfare is alive and well here. He is the most divisive President ever. Shame on the stupid lefties here buying into all of the S;;;;;t that Obama is throwing out to try to divide and win an election. Keeps you in a tail spin over everything but what is really important: his failure and what he is really doing to this country and why!

July 11, 2012 at 9:45 p.m.

Yeah, Obama's the divisive one, why you are clearly trying to do your best to unite us...against you.

July 11, 2012 at 9:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Mymy,

Thank you for that empty, baseless rhetoric.

July 11, 2012 at 9:48 p.m.
mymy said...

Al: Romney was honest and straight forward. He did not back down when some had to boo. Good for him. He did not pander. Just straight talk. Something Obama is incapable of doing. They know where he stands. You and yours are such dumb A.....!

July 11, 2012 at 9:50 p.m.
mymy said...

Easy: I don't have to provide you with S....t. You have proved how dumb you are over and over again. Why should anybody bother with you and yours!

You are a taker and want everybody else to provide for you. Wake up and build a life.

July 11, 2012 at 9:52 p.m.
mymy said...

Bulbs: Plant those bulbs in that dark, stinky place. They will do much better than your head that is there now!

July 11, 2012 at 9:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

mymy,

Because you and tderng made the claim, jackass. When you make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it. That's how it works. You either have proof or you don't. And, in this case, it seems you have none.

LOL! You have proved how dumb you are over and over again. Why should anybody bother with you and yours?

And you still haven't proven anything or even made an argument. You have to resort to insults and name-calling. You're posts could be written by a child.

July 11, 2012 at 9:57 p.m.

Mitt Romney was pandering to his base. I'm surprised you didn't notice how he was saying just what they wanted him to say to the NAACP.

And straight talk? From Mitt Romney? Since when?

mymy: Your commentary speaks for itself. Thank you for uniting Americans against you. Please make sure to wave your Mitt Romney barrier all around.

July 11, 2012 at 10:01 p.m.
mymy said...

LOL at Easy. I've seen the interviews,etc. first hand. If I every find one, I'll be happy to send to you. I will not be going out of my way. You would have some excuse for Obama as usual.

July 11, 2012 at 10:03 p.m.
mymy said...

Bulbs: He told them what he would do. Take it or leave it. So, what is wrong with that. I would rather someone tell me the truth rather the the BS Obama spits out. Fool!

July 11, 2012 at 10:06 p.m.

We couldn't make half the excuses you make for Mitt Romney if we tried.

But IOKIYAR.

I see you're making excuses for Romney's NAACP speech. I don't know what you heard, but I heard him make a lot of vague pronouncements, and it was clearly pandering to his real base, in ways that you'll make excuses for. Because you think Mitt Romney tells you the truth, when his mendacity is well documented.

But no, you just say "He's saying what's unpopular, that's why we know it's true, nobody likes the truth, and since liberals don't like it, it must be true!" which reminds me of somebody I know who thought Sarah Palin acted the same way. In reality, she was just saying what the people she was really talking to wanted to hear.

July 11, 2012 at 10:06 p.m.
mymy said...

Bulbs, Easy, Alpo, etc.: bet your credit score is as low as your IQ's or the other way around!

July 11, 2012 at 10:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

mymy,

Once again, COP OUT.

You were at the interviews? You might want to look up the meaning of the word "firsthand".

You would have your own idiotic analysis of Obama if you ever did provide proof.

:-) Thanks for being your ignorant conservative/republican/coward/Mitt Romney ass-kissing self. You're very predictable.

July 11, 2012 at 10:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Mymy,

I know potted plants that have a higher IQ than you. You're severe lack of intelligence, reasoning skills and basic logic is clearly evident through your posts. :-)

And by the way, credit score ranges are much higher than any IQ. The highest IQ ever was just over 200. The lowest credit score range goes into the 200's. I'm sure if you had any sense at all, you would have known that.

So your insult actually wasn't an insult. At best you said we all had 200 IQ's. In which case, we would all be geniuses.

July 11, 2012 at 10:12 p.m.
mymy said...

Your all LOL funny. Thanks for the laughs. A good way to end the day.

July 11, 2012 at 10:13 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "alprova...You wrote at 3:23pm : "Two things: 1.) You have indeed declared that you detest assisting the poor, through the payment of taxes that may be used for that purpose,""

"Those are YOUR inflammatory words not mine. I have stated many times what the proper role of the federal government is according to the Constitution. It is not to funnel other people's money to you or me or anyone else. This is my position and the position of millions of others ( others who expressed their view in the mid term election, I might add ) and the position of the Free Press for at least the 35 years plus I have been reading it."

There's no need to repeat yourself. It's all up above.

"Under your logic you could just as easily state that I "detest" giving a house to a poor family at taxpayer's expense because you believe that is what the federal government should do."

No I couldn't, because I have expressed no such opinion, nor have you responded to this hypothetical opinion that you now are raising.

I'm really tired of going back and forth with you. You have been all over the map with your arguments, distractions, definitions, and life's just too short to keep on going.

So...let's part ways with you thinking that I am "Godless" and my thinking that you need a remedial course in Christianity.

You go out and beat up a homosexual or two in the name of God, and on my way home from my weekly meeting with my fellow Atheists, I'll swing by my marijuana supplier and stop in at the liquor store, then I'll see if I can pick up a prostitute for a quickie, then if I have a little more time this evening, I'll see if I can find a peasant or two to murder in order to keep my Socialism skills up to par.

July 11, 2012 at 10:15 p.m.

mymy: Ooh, trying to take things personal?

Thanks again, for showing you can't make effective arguments, so you try to bring up matters unrelated to the discussion.

alprova: conservative can't be consistent, he's following the dictates of his hero Mitt Floppington Romney.

July 11, 2012 at 10:16 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Alpo, you should make from your "business" just enough to live on, then give the rest to Obama. You know, so he can in turn give it to prospective voters for the democratic party. To keep any more than you need would just be greedy. A true liberal will "strive for mediocrity". To strive for greatness is now taboo.

July 11, 2012 at 10:18 p.m.

Why don't you give away your money to Mitt Romney, since he's so rich and successful that he's clearly a better businessman...oh wait, thanks to tax laws that give great advantages to the top 1%, you are!

And trickle down has been working so well, hasn't it?

You do support it, right, all TROO conservatives do!

Actually you probably believe they don't get enough, that they're horribly horribly oppressed.

July 11, 2012 at 10:23 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Bulbs, since when did the world bestow upon you the power to decide what others "should" do and "shouldn't" do? People that know you must not listen to a word you say, so you come on here and try (laughably) to dictate what people should think and what they should say. You must really be a lonely old son-of-a-bitch. Get a cat.

July 11, 2012 at 10:27 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

The liberal philosophy that just because everybody can't be wealthy, nobody should be wealthy, is the apex of jealousy and envy. Obama's "tax the rich" mantra will bring in about $85 billion. That's enough to run the federal government for about 8 1/2 days. How's that going to help the 99%?

July 11, 2012 at 10:33 p.m.

Well, gee, you just got done telling alprova what he should do, and now you're pompously trying to get indignant at me over it?

You must be really out of touch since you basically just showed your own hypocrisy right there.

However I have the same rights as any other free individual to think, to reason, and so do you. That means I get to have opinions, and yes, that includes telling people what they should do. Can I be wrong? Absolutely. But they can be wrong too.

I don't arrogantly insist on perfection from myself or others. I do, however, have the capacity to recognize when somebody is full of BS.

Like yours. Hypocrisy and personalization. My word, whatever will I do?

Oh yes, I'll feel validated because your conduct is repellent enough to persuade me of you being wrong.

Thanks, opposition like you is the best support anybody could have.

And no, that's not the liberal philosophy. Thanks again, your misrepresentations continue to show you don't understand, but feel free to try to deceive others about your opposition.

Perhaps I should say the conservative philosophy seems to be...hey, I can be wealthy, who cares about the rest of you, as long as I've got mine!

Also, you're upset about this tax change, yet how long ago was I being told that even the slightest cut was VERY VERY important. Oh about a week, with the latest Transportation Bill, or maybe it was the Farm Bill. Maybe two weeks. I'm honestly not sure.

Or should I just bring up World of ClassWarfare again?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

Yeah, I think I will. Your pattern is recognized. When it's from the 1%, you downplay it. But when you take from the poor? It's HUGE and GINORMOUS!

July 11, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Toes, if you were as smart as you are mean you'd be formidable. How many car doors do you weatherstrip in a night? Better get started!

July 11, 2012 at 10:41 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulbs: You need to get over yourself. You should be embarrassed.

July 11, 2012 at 10:51 p.m.

Why? Because I waste time with you?

July 11, 2012 at 10:56 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jack_Trollface,

You need to get over yourself. You should be embarrassed.

July 11, 2012 at 11:01 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

You and alpo tell people what they should do all the time, so, you both are free game to reap what you sew. You both SHOULDN'T be wasting your time on comment pages when the homeless are out there in need. If you practiced what you preached you'd be out there every day feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and getting voter i.d. to the poor democrats. But the fact that you spend your life in virtual reality tells me you don't help the very people you supposedly care about.

Weatherstrip dude? really? You just don't have a clue.

July 11, 2012 at 11:15 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Easy just mimics what everybody else says. Reminds me of a little boy. NA NA NA NA NAAA! Very mature. Go to bed fat boy.

July 11, 2012 at 11:17 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

You really are a moron. I feel sorry for your wife and children, if they haven't left you yet. Bask in your ignorance. :-). Happy metal working, you whiny bitch.

July 11, 2012 at 11:25 p.m.

TOES02800, your arguments keep getting feebler and feebler. You're the one who is really about controlling other people, and yet you pretend you're the virtuous one, since you're just telling people who deserve it, despite your protests that it's wrong to tell other people what to do.

The mental gymnastics you engage in to justify your conduct must have left your brain flexible enough to accept any thought. It certainly explains your thoughtless devotion to following the Republican Agenda.

Me? In case you haven't noticed, as a general rule, I don't tell you a thing I do, I don't try to make myself the object of discussion. You, on the other hand, are quite frequently telling other people what you personally feel about them, and try to make it a focus of discussion. Why is that?

Your conduct is readily apparent, not that you'll ever own up to it. Personal responsibility is something you don't apply to yourself.

You should be the last person to complain about others being immature.

July 11, 2012 at 11:29 p.m.
tderng said...

Well, Texas WFAA Channel 8 reporter Brad Watson asked him more than one tough question, corrected the President, and generally did what a reporter should do. President Obama was not amused:

July 12, 2012 at 12:05 a.m.

You mean the President asking for the chance to finish his answers?

Damn him, how discourteous of Obama, the President should just accept being interrupted all of the time without objection. That's how Bill O'Reilly does it, and we all know Bill O'Reilly's way is best.

And actually I've encountered that in real life myself. I kept getting interrupted, I politely asked if I could have a chance to finish, the other person flew off the handle at me, and tried to make me feel guilty for it.

So...basically you've just convinced me that Obama isn't who you make him out to be.

July 12, 2012 at 12:21 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.