|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
|
Republicans 4
#23457361 - 07/19/16 07:46 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Republicans. Fewer taxes no matter what; fuck the common good. Slash expenditures designed to help the poor and disabled; fuck the poor and disabled. The acquisition and protection of private property is the highest good. Every-man-for-himself is the highest good. Any notion of community and social cohesion is anathema. Republicans.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
5150
phantom
Registered: 09/01/06
Posts: 5,437
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
|
Its not that cut and dried It comes down to over population Within chaos there will always be oppurtunist,s Say no to immigration,that's modern mans biggest threat
-------------------- "the way of the warrior is the resolute acceptance of death" Miyamoto Musashi
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Republicans. Fewer taxes no matter what; fuck the common good. Slash expenditures designed to help the poor and disabled; fuck the poor and disabled. The acquisition and protection of private property is the highest good. Every-man-for-himself is the highest good. Any notion of community and social cohesion is anathema. Republicans.
We are not suppose to care about the Disable, but only let our government create them by letting corporations to take control of what we eat and drink. And remember, the first school shooting, the columbine shooting happened after gmo's were on the market. But Obamas are not letting there own children put that stuff into their bodies, but okaying it for human consumption. And so do you really care about the disable, or are you just trolling around?
Mental Health Facts CHILDREN & TEENS Fact: 1 in 5 children ages 13-18 have, or will have a serious mental illness.1 Impact Warning Signs Suicide 20% 11% 10% 8% 20% of youth ages 13-18 live with a mental health condition1 11% of youth have a mood disorder 1 10% of youth have a behavior or conduct disorder 1 8% of youth have an anxiety disorder 1 http://www.nami.org/getattachment/Learn-More/Mental-Health-by-the-Numbers/childrenmhfacts.pdf
GMOs Impact on Gut and Mental Health http://schoolfood.info/?p=412
|
fivepointer
newbie
Registered: 08/03/02
Posts: 1,428
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
|
Rethugs always throw the poor under the bus so they can get a bigger tax break. It is what they do.
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 11 hours, 14 minutes
|
|
Quote:
fivepointer said: Rethugs always throw the poor under the bus so they can get a bigger tax break. It is what they do.
And when did the largest wealth and income inequality in 80 years take place? Under Obama!
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/barack-obama-successfully-rich-richer/
"The gap between the rich and poor has widened more under Obama than any other President"
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
Re: Republicans [Re: qman] 2
#23459332 - 07/20/16 11:28 AM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: And when did the largest wealth and income inequality in 80 years take place? Under Obama!
He failed to restore taxes on the wealthy.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 11 hours, 14 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
qman said: And when did the largest wealth and income inequality in 80 years take place? Under Obama!
He failed to restore taxes on the wealthy.
That's only one factor, fiscal and monetary policy were also huge factors.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
Re: Republicans [Re: qman] 2
#23459359 - 07/20/16 11:36 AM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: He failed to restore taxes on the wealthy.
That's only one factor, fiscal and monetary policy were also huge factors.
Not restoring taxes on the wealthy IS fiscal policy.
I don't know what monetary policy you think increased the income gap.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 11 hours, 14 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: He failed to restore taxes on the wealthy.
That's only one factor, fiscal and monetary policy were also huge factors.
Not restoring taxes on the wealthy IS fiscal policy.
I don't know what monetary policy you think increased the income gap.
Taxation policy is one part of fiscal policy.
You don't know what part of monetary policy increased the wealth gap, which ultimately increases the income gap as well?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
Re: Republicans [Re: qman] 1
#23459459 - 07/20/16 12:08 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Not restoring taxes on the wealthy IS fiscal policy.
Taxation policy is one part of fiscal policy.
Exactly. Not increasing taxes on the wealthy was a huge reason for the growth in the income gap.
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I don't know what monetary policy you think increased the income gap.
You don't know what part of monetary policy increased the wealth gap, which ultimately increases the income gap as well?
I don't know what monetary policy you think increased the income gap. Care to share?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
Re: Republicans [Re: qman] 2
#23459476 - 07/20/16 12:16 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
For the record, I'm agreeing with you that Obama is responsible for the increased income gap, because he didn't increase taxes on the rich.
I'm just curious if you think there are other more significant reasons to blame him, and if so, what those reasons specifically are.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 11 hours, 14 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Not restoring taxes on the wealthy IS fiscal policy.
Taxation policy is one part of fiscal policy.
Exactly. Not increasing taxes on the wealthy was a huge reason for the growth in the income gap.
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I don't know what monetary policy you think increased the income gap.
You don't know what part of monetary policy increased the wealth gap, which ultimately increases the income gap as well?
I don't know what monetary policy you think increased the income gap. Care to share?
You don't think bidding up financial assets with QE didn't create capital gains, which can ultimately be reinvested to create a larger stream of income?
I make $30 million in capital gains thanks to QE, I reinvest my profits into income producing investments to increase my income, why is this a difficult concept to understand?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
Re: Republicans [Re: qman] 1
#23459498 - 07/20/16 12:21 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: You don't think bidding up financial assets with QE didn't create capital gains, which can ultimately be reinvested to create a larger stream of income?
I make $30 million in capital gains thanks to QE, I reinvest my profits into income producing investments to increase my income, why is this a difficult concept to understand?
I get it. Rich people have a larger share of income from capital gains than earned income. Obama should have taxed that at least as much as earned income, but he gave the wealthy a big tax break.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 11 hours, 14 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
qman said: You don't think bidding up financial assets with QE didn't create capital gains, which can ultimately be reinvested to create a larger stream of income?
I make $30 million in capital gains thanks to QE, I reinvest my profits into income producing investments to increase my income, why is this a difficult concept to understand?
I get it. Rich people have a larger share of income from capital gains than earned income. Obama should have taxed that at least as much as earned income, but he gave the wealthy a big tax break.
Or how about instead of increasing taxes on the thieves, don't create a policy which produces the inequality in the first place!!
This chasing down the wealth through taxation isn't going to work, the rich aren't going to give it away to the peasants, we need to change the structures which create these inequalities.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
Re: Republicans [Re: qman] 1
#23459679 - 07/20/16 01:30 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: how about instead of increasing taxes on the thieves, don't create a policy which produces the inequality in the first place!!
Wealth inequality is the natural result of capitalism without Government intervention. I've asked many times for an example of where a strong middle class was created without Government intervention, and to date no one has been able to answer that.
Quote:
qman said: This chasing down the wealth through taxation isn't going to work, the rich aren't going to give it away to the peasants, we need to change the structures which create these inequalities.
But it DOES works. Just look at ANY country with a strong middle class.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 11 hours, 14 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
qman said: how about instead of increasing taxes on the thieves, don't create a policy which produces the inequality in the first place!!
Wealth inequality is the natural result of capitalism without Government intervention. I've asked many times for an example of where a strong middle class was created without Government intervention, and to date no one has been able to answer that.
Quote:
qman said: This chasing down the wealth through taxation isn't going to work, the rich aren't going to give it away to the peasants, we need to change the structures which create these inequalities.
But it DOES works. Just look at ANY country with a strong middle class.
Flooding the economy with illegal workers and then shipping jobs out of the US fucks over the middle class.
How's chasing down the inequality through taxation been working for this country?
When wages are strong and jobs are plentiful, we don't have to count on corrupt politicians to redistribute wealth, why do you trust these clowns with your economic well-being?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
Re: Republicans [Re: qman] 1
#23459725 - 07/20/16 01:52 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: Flooding the economy with illegal workers and then shipping jobs out of the US fucks over the middle class.
The only way to stop that is through Government intervention.
Quote:
qman said: How's chasing down the inequality through taxation been working for this country?
It worked incredibly well, until we stopped doing it in the early 80's. That's when inequality really started to grow.
Quote:
qman said: When wages are strong and jobs are plentiful, we don't have to count on corrupt politicians to redistribute wealth, why do you trust these clowns with your economic well-being?
Oh really? Can you show us a country with a strong middle class where Government didn't take a strong role in creating it?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Patlal
You ask too many questions
Registered: 10/09/10
Posts: 44,826
Loc: Ottawa
Last seen: 3 hours, 1 minute
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Republicans. Fewer taxes no matter what; fuck the common good. Slash expenditures designed to help the poor and disabled; fuck the poor and disabled. The acquisition and protection of private property is the highest good. Every-man-for-himself is the highest good. Any notion of community and social cohesion is anathema. Republicans.
Amen
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,580
Last seen: 2 hours, 18 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Douglas Howard said: And remember, the first school shooting, the columbine shooting
Actually, the first school shooting happened in 1764, when three American Indians attacked a school and killed 9 kids and the schoolmaster. The earliest school shooting perpetrated by a current student took place in 1840, when a pissed off student brought a pistol and shot one of his professors. I'm gonna go ahead and say GMOs had nothing to do with those.
Plus, the deadliest school massacre in US history was in 1927, when a mentally unstable farmer rigged a school to blow and killed 38 kids, 6 adults, and injured 58 more.
Quote:
qman said: How's chasing down the inequality through taxation been working for this country?
Well, if we look at some of those times of nostalgic prosperity, 1950's postwar America tends to stand out. While the fact that it was "postwar" probably played a factor in the booming economy, the average tax rate at the time was 92% on the top 0.1%. Interestingly, this coincides with the emergence of the middle class. Seems that chasing down inequality through taxation worked great, right up until we just kind of stopped doing it.
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: Kryptos]
#23471250 - 07/24/16 02:27 AM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
Douglas Howard said: And remember, the first school shooting, the columbine shooting
Actually, the first school shooting happened in 1764, when three American Indians attacked a school and killed 9 kids and the schoolmaster. The earliest school shooting perpetrated by a current student took place in 1840, when a pissed off student brought a pistol and shot one of his professors. I'm gonna go ahead and say GMOs had nothing to do with those.
Plus, the deadliest school massacre in US history was in 1927, when a mentally unstable farmer rigged a school to blow and killed 38 kids, 6 adults, and injured 58 more.
Quote:
qman said: How's chasing down the inequality through taxation been working for this country?
Well, if we look at some of those times of nostalgic prosperity, 1950's postwar America tends to stand out. While the fact that it was "postwar" probably played a factor in the booming economy, the average tax rate at the time was 92% on the top 0.1%. Interestingly, this coincides with the emergence of the middle class. Seems that chasing down inequality through taxation worked great, right up until we just kind of stopped doing it.
I know about the Texas shooting. But I'm talking about the constant flow of school shootings and the rest of them; like the theaters and so on.. We had mental illness all throughout our history. Like Charles Manson and so on. But the increasement of mass shooting shows that people are having problems of resolving issues between others. Even I have seen law enforcement officials are showing weird behaviors as if they are not comprehending at all what they are doing, as if they are space cadets. I has to be careful in what I have to say around others, that it is making me feel uncomfortable being in the public. A friend of mines had told me that this generation of people is not the same as when we were their age ( But we weren't aware of gmo's at the time when he had said that statement). But how can someone that were born around the time of gmo's were out on the market can see the differences between how it were before. The politicians knows this, but they are being paid not to mention it, but to act dumb-founded, as if nothing is going on, that we are just having another ordinary days of problems. There has been times that we all feels as if we want to shoot up someone for giving us a bad time, but we just laugh about afterwards. But now people are reacting on their impulses, that they are not thinking of the consequences in what will happen afterwards.
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
In these days, you cannot tell the differences between someone that is mentally ill, it is because the majority are mentally ill and which that is the new norm.
No one cannot see that the mother suffers from mental illness. They are actually bringing up someone that has a mental disorder on live broadcast as if she had known better.
|
Brian Jones
Club 27
Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,418
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 2 hours, 9 minutes
|
Re: Republicans [Re: qman]
#23471381 - 07/24/16 04:32 AM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Not restoring taxes on the wealthy IS fiscal policy.
Taxation policy is one part of fiscal policy.
Exactly. Not increasing taxes on the wealthy was a huge reason for the growth in the income gap.
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I don't know what monetary policy you think increased the income gap.
You don't know what part of monetary policy increased the wealth gap, which ultimately increases the income gap as well?
I don't know what monetary policy you think increased the income gap. Care to share?
You don't think bidding up financial assets with QE didn't create capital gains, which can ultimately be reinvested to create a larger stream of income?
I make $30 million in capital gains thanks to QE, I reinvest my profits into income producing investments to increase my income, why is this a difficult concept to understand?
You made 30 million and you are constantly posting on the shroomery. I'm not calling you a liar, I swear to God. It's just that it makes no sense to me. If I had had 30 million I would never sign into this website. But hey congratulations on your success,
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,580
Last seen: 2 hours, 18 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Douglas Howard said:
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
Douglas Howard said: And remember, the first school shooting, the columbine shooting
Actually, the first school shooting happened in 1764, when three American Indians attacked a school and killed 9 kids and the schoolmaster. The earliest school shooting perpetrated by a current student took place in 1840, when a pissed off student brought a pistol and shot one of his professors. I'm gonna go ahead and say GMOs had nothing to do with those.
Plus, the deadliest school massacre in US history was in 1927, when a mentally unstable farmer rigged a school to blow and killed 38 kids, 6 adults, and injured 58 more.
Quote:
qman said: How's chasing down the inequality through taxation been working for this country?
Well, if we look at some of those times of nostalgic prosperity, 1950's postwar America tends to stand out. While the fact that it was "postwar" probably played a factor in the booming economy, the average tax rate at the time was 92% on the top 0.1%. Interestingly, this coincides with the emergence of the middle class. Seems that chasing down inequality through taxation worked great, right up until we just kind of stopped doing it.
I know about the Texas shooting. But I'm talking about the constant flow of school shootings and the rest of them; like the theaters and so on.. We had mental illness all throughout our history. Like Charles Manson and so on. But the increasement of mass shooting shows that people are having problems of resolving issues between others. Even I have seen law enforcement officials are showing weird behaviors as if they are not comprehending at all what they are doing, as if they are space cadets. I has to be careful in what I have to say around others, that it is making me feel uncomfortable being in the public. A friend of mines had told me that this generation of people is not the same as when we were their age ( But we weren't aware of gmo's at the time when he had said that statement). But how can someone that were born around the time of gmo's were out on the market can see the differences between how it were before. The politicians knows this, but they are being paid not to mention it, but to act dumb-founded, as if nothing is going on, that we are just having another ordinary days of problems. There has been times that we all feels as if we want to shoot up someone for giving us a bad time, but we just laugh about afterwards. But now people are reacting on their impulses, that they are not thinking of the consequences in what will happen afterwards.
Speaking of space cadets, none of the shootings I mentioned happened in Texas (amazingly enough). Heh. I'm still gonna call BS on GMOs having any negative effects. Any DNA or RNA in food would be broken down into base nucleotides or unrecognizably short strings by proteins designed to do specifically that in saliva, as well as the effects of stomach acid. It can't actually change you. That's sort of like thinking that if you tear down an old house and reuse some of the bricks, the bricks are gonna fall apart because they want to go back to their original old house shape.
As for shootings becoming more common, I think that's mostly because of publicity. Gun violence as a whole peaked during prohibition, then declined until around WWII, when it spiked again, and a final spike in the early 90's. Since then, gun violence is down by half. Of that, 2/3rds of deaths by gun are suicide. (I always found it interesting that psychologists ask suicidal patients if they "have a plan", and lock them up if they say yes. Who needs a plan when you could go down to Walmart and buy a 12 gauge head remover for 200$ in less than an hour? It's not like the clerk is gonna know or care you were just under psychiatric evaluation, they'll get fired if they don't sell.) Of course, we do seem to have more random "active shooter" scenarios now, whereas it seemed previous gun violence was aimed at specific people. I think that has more to do with a general feeling of hopelessness due to the economy missing the toilet mixed with extremely polarized politics. It's like a death cult mentality (this is also why I think ISIS is able to recruit) where someone sees no light at the end of the tunnel, they think life will only get worse, and so they decide to die in the most spectacular way they can. If you can't figure out a way to live for what you believe in, might as well die for it. That way, they may have accomplished nothing and become a literal stain on humanity, but people might still say their names in hushed voices for a few minutes. Everyone wants to be (in-)famous.
A third factor, and this is quite possibly the most important/the most relevant, is timing. You know about every shooting that has happened in the last few years because you were alive and saw the news broadcasts. 20 years from now, kids aren't gonna know anything about columbine simply by virtue of not being alive during that time. This is during a time where detailed records are kept on... I was gonna say everything, but that's not true, especially related to guns. It's actually illegal for the government institution that collects data on all deaths in the country for any reason (CDC) to collect and analyze data on gun deaths. I'm sure we've lost reams of data on mass shootings to random fires or bugs or people simply not caring enough to keep the data around. Not only did Fatty Arbuckle get blackballed from Hollywood and become unable to find work due to a false accusation, a good chunk of his films no longer exist in any form. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure only one of his feature length films survived the court of public opinion for long enough that we still have copies.
|
Algo
Backstrap Fever
Registered: 12/15/14
Posts: 3,857
|
Re: Republicans [Re: qman] 1
#23471545 - 07/24/16 07:30 AM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
On the subject of income inequality that Fal and Q were talking about you guys are both kinda off base, no offense. But what we have is a combination of corporations that are in bed with government which is the real issue. One guy says "it's the corporations, we need more government intervention!" The next guy says "too much government we need less intervention!" When reality is they are working together to for the benefit of themselves, fuck all of us. So in conclusion the issue is both government and corporations that are working against us. The only way to stop this is to vote in people who you believe will stand up to the corruption, they are hard to find. You may not have liked Ron Paul but at least he had a record of standing up against stuff like that.
--------------------
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: Kryptos]
#23471686 - 07/24/16 08:50 AM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
Douglas Howard said:
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
Douglas Howard said: And remember, the first school shooting, the columbine shooting
Actually, the first school shooting happened in 1764, when three American Indians attacked a school and killed 9 kids and the schoolmaster. The earliest school shooting perpetrated by a current student took place in 1840, when a pissed off student brought a pistol and shot one of his professors. I'm gonna go ahead and say GMOs had nothing to do with those.
Plus, the deadliest school massacre in US history was in 1927, when a mentally unstable farmer rigged a school to blow and killed 38 kids, 6 adults, and injured 58 more.
Quote:
qman said: How's chasing down the inequality through taxation been working for this country?
Well, if we look at some of those times of nostalgic prosperity, 1950's postwar America tends to stand out. While the fact that it was "postwar" probably played a factor in the booming economy, the average tax rate at the time was 92% on the top 0.1%. Interestingly, this coincides with the emergence of the middle class. Seems that chasing down inequality through taxation worked great, right up until we just kind of stopped doing it.
I know about the Texas shooting. But I'm talking about the constant flow of school shootings and the rest of them; like the theaters and so on.. We had mental illness all throughout our history. Like Charles Manson and so on. But the increasement of mass shooting shows that people are having problems of resolving issues between others. Even I have seen law enforcement officials are showing weird behaviors as if they are not comprehending at all what they are doing, as if they are space cadets. I has to be careful in what I have to say around others, that it is making me feel uncomfortable being in the public. A friend of mines had told me that this generation of people is not the same as when we were their age ( But we weren't aware of gmo's at the time when he had said that statement). But how can someone that were born around the time of gmo's were out on the market can see the differences between how it were before. The politicians knows this, but they are being paid not to mention it, but to act dumb-founded, as if nothing is going on, that we are just having another ordinary days of problems. There has been times that we all feels as if we want to shoot up someone for giving us a bad time, but we just laugh about afterwards. But now people are reacting on their impulses, that they are not thinking of the consequences in what will happen afterwards.
Speaking of space cadets, none of the shootings I mentioned happened in Texas (amazingly enough). Heh. I'm still gonna call BS on GMOs having any negative effects. Any DNA or RNA in food would be broken down into base nucleotides or unrecognizably short strings by proteins designed to do specifically that in saliva, as well as the effects of stomach acid. It can't actually change you. That's sort of like thinking that if you tear down an old house and reuse some of the bricks, the bricks are gonna fall apart because they want to go back to their original old house shape.
As for shootings becoming more common, I think that's mostly because of publicity. Gun violence as a whole peaked during prohibition, then declined until around WWII, when it spiked again, and a final spike in the early 90's. Since then, gun violence is down by half. Of that, 2/3rds of deaths by gun are suicide. (I always found it interesting that psychologists ask suicidal patients if they "have a plan", and lock them up if they say yes. Who needs a plan when you could go down to Walmart and buy a 12 gauge head remover for 200$ in less than an hour? It's not like the clerk is gonna know or care you were just under psychiatric evaluation, they'll get fired if they don't sell.) Of course, we do seem to have more random "active shooter" scenarios now, whereas it seemed previous gun violence was aimed at specific people. I think that has more to do with a general feeling of hopelessness due to the economy missing the toilet mixed with extremely polarized politics. It's like a death cult mentality (this is also why I think ISIS is able to recruit) where someone sees no light at the end of the tunnel, they think life will only get worse, and so they decide to die in the most spectacular way they can. If you can't figure out a way to live for what you believe in, might as well die for it. That way, they may have accomplished nothing and become a literal stain on humanity, but people might still say their names in hushed voices for a few minutes. Everyone wants to be (in-)famous.
A third factor, and this is quite possibly the most important/the most relevant, is timing. You know about every shooting that has happened in the last few years because you were alive and saw the news broadcasts. 20 years from now, kids aren't gonna know anything about columbine simply by virtue of not being alive during that time. This is during a time where detailed records are kept on... I was gonna say everything, but that's not true, especially related to guns. It's actually illegal for the government institution that collects data on all deaths in the country for any reason (CDC) to collect and analyze data on gun deaths. I'm sure we've lost reams of data on mass shootings to random fires or bugs or people simply not caring enough to keep the data around. Not only did Fatty Arbuckle get blackballed from Hollywood and become unable to find work due to a false accusation, a good chunk of his films no longer exist in any form. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure only one of his feature length films survived the court of public opinion for long enough that we still have copies.
Well Listeria and all sort of other bacteria doesn't breaks down at all. It is just absorbed into the bloodstream the body attacking all sort of parts of the body before it is eliminated. Even tooth decay can cause dementia and which a lot of people in the past has had. And now we has people of these times that doesn't has tooth decay but suffers from some certain level of dementia. And gmo's is created by using a bacteria that lowers the immune system and which that bacteria is not made for consumption.
July 31, 2013 -- Poor dental health and gum disease may be linked to Alzheimer's disease and dementia, a new study from the University of Central Lancashire School of Medicine and Dentistry suggests.
Although past studies have suggested a link between oral health and dementia, this is the first to pinpoint a specific gum disease bacteria in the brain.
Researchers looked at donated brain samples of 10 people without dementia and 10 people with dementia. They found the bacteria Porphyromonas gingivalis in the brains of four of those with dementia.
This bacteria may play a role in changes in the brain in Alzheimer's disease, contributing to symptoms including confusion and failing memory.
Everyday activities like eating and tooth brushing, and some dental treatment, could allow the bacteria to enter the brain. "We are working on the theory that when the brain is repeatedly exposed to bacteria and/or debris from our gums, subsequent immune responses may lead to nerve cell death and possibly memory loss," says Sim Singhrao, PhD, a senior research fellow at the university. http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/news/20130731/dental-health-dementia
Nobody with sense goes out and settle their business with innocent lives. tHey go and settle their business with the one who caused the problem. Like if a man's wife has cheated on him. He doesn't seek revenge on the world. He seek the one that has cheated on him. And so shooting at cops that has nothing to do with them of being in that state of mind, and that is a severe mental issue. There has been people that live off of the welfare programs all of there life that has not complained about the system and or decided to go off and shoot up a school. But the columbine shooters were children of a middle-class family. If children were picking at them in school, if they has sense like a lot of other children. They will start working out at the gym and enter into a Mix martial art class. And I saw an officer on T.V. looking morbidly, tasering an old white woman that weren't arguing at all, just for telling her daughter or granddaughter to stop behaving like a rude child.
|
qman
Stranger
Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 11 hours, 14 minutes
|
Re: Republicans [Re: Kryptos]
#23471695 - 07/24/16 08:55 AM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
Douglas Howard said: And remember, the first school shooting, the columbine shooting
Actually, the first school shooting happened in 1764, when three American Indians attacked a school and killed 9 kids and the schoolmaster. The earliest school shooting perpetrated by a current student took place in 1840, when a pissed off student brought a pistol and shot one of his professors. I'm gonna go ahead and say GMOs had nothing to do with those.
Plus, the deadliest school massacre in US history was in 1927, when a mentally unstable farmer rigged a school to blow and killed 38 kids, 6 adults, and injured 58 more.
Quote:
qman said: How's chasing down the inequality through taxation been working for this country?
Well, if we look at some of those times of nostalgic prosperity, 1950's postwar America tends to stand out. While the fact that it was "postwar" probably played a factor in the booming economy, the average tax rate at the time was 92% on the top 0.1%. Interestingly, this coincides with the emergence of the middle class. Seems that chasing down inequality through taxation worked great, right up until we just kind of stopped doing it.
Nobody ever paid a 92% tax rate on their income, there was massive loopholes and deductions. Why would anyone go to work or invest if 92% of their income was taxed? Liberals always talk about the tax rate of 1950's, they don't understand what the real tax rate was, it wasn't 92%.
Also, the top 1% pay much more in taxes relative to the middle class today.
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,580
Last seen: 2 hours, 18 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Douglas Howard said: And gmo's is created by using a bacteria that lowers the immune system and which that bacteria is not made for consumption.
Nobody with sense goes out and settle their business with innocent lives.
In the interests of simplifying this quote wall'o'text, I'm going to shorten the quote and reply to these two statements on which the part of your argument I disagree with rests:
A) GMO foods, and genetic modification in general has absolutely nothing to do with bacteria, genetic material is inserted using a specially designed virus that injects RNA into cells to be written into the genetic code in the nucleus. This is also how viruses reproduce. Viruses are basically little syringes with a tiny bit of genetic data, and they poke it into a cell to reprogram the cell to make more viruses. Some (few) bacteria are hardy enough to survive the human digestive system. I can't think of a single virus that could. Well, okay, minor caveat, reprogrammed GMO bacteria are used to incubate medicines (I think insulin is a common one using E.coli) in a bioreactor. Those bacteria never become a part of the food supply.
B) Yep, nobody with sense takes their frustrations out on innocent lives. I fully agree. Then again, nobody with even the slightest modicum of sense would accuse a grieving family member who just lost their child to a senseless (see what I did there?) tragedy of being a paid actor that just needs to go back to smiling and waving from the red carpet. Heck, there's even a conspiracy forum here (that I frequent much more than this one). There is an entire branch of economics dedicated to figuring out how to predict the irrational behaviors of the consumer public. We are not Vulcans.
As for qman: I would pay the absolute shit out of a 92% tax rate making 10m/year instead of continuing on my current trajectory that will likely end up with me making 100-150k in industrial synthetic chemical design. 800k left over is way better than 150k before tax. Considering my life to date costs an average of 12k/year and I don't consider myself to be dirt poor, I really don't need that much. Of course, the flip side of that is I'm fine with declaring a reasonable income and paying taxes instead of using Hollywood bookkeeping to somehow lose money on the top grossing films in history.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
Re: Republicans [Re: qman]
#23477078 - 07/25/16 09:36 PM (7 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: Nobody ever paid a 92% tax rate on their income, there was massive loopholes and deductions. Why would anyone go to work or invest if 92% of their income was taxed? Liberals always talk about the tax rate of 1950's, they don't understand what the real tax rate was, it wasn't 92%.
No one claimed the effective tax rate was 92%. But the effective tax rate used to be a lot higher before the 1980s.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
I think the point here is clear. Republicans are repugnant human beings... but so are Democrats. The Republicans have moved so far to the right, that they will soon be irrelevant, in my view. Democrats have followed them to the right. Democrats are what Republicans used to be.
We have no leftist party in the United States. That is why our country is turning into such a fucking shithole. There is no left-wing voice. We have to fix that.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
Wow, all we have in this country is left wing politics, the ignorance of your posts are stunning, luckily, you can keep your head in the sand and not have to defend such an absurd point of veiw
|
Patlal
You ask too many questions
Registered: 10/09/10
Posts: 44,826
Loc: Ottawa
Last seen: 3 hours, 1 minute
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I think the point here is clear. Republicans are repugnant human beings... but so are Democrats. The Republicans have moved so far to the right, that they will soon be irrelevant, in my view. Democrats have followed them to the right. Democrats are what Republicans used to be.
We have no leftist party in the United States. That is why our country is turning into such a fucking shithole. There is no left-wing voice. We have to fix that.
The left had Sanders. But it turns out the Democrats stacked the deck against him.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Wow, all we have in this country is left wing politics, the ignorance of your posts are stunning, luckily, you can keep your head in the sand and not have to defend such an absurd point of veiw
I think you're confusing left wing politics with establishment politics. Robert Reich sums it up perfectly here:
Hillary doesn’t get it: She doesn’t need to move toward the middle — she needs to move toward the anti-establishment
Quote:
Most basically, the anti-establishment wants big money out of politics. This was the premise of Sanders’s campaign. It’s also been central to Donald (“I’m so rich I can’t be bought off”) Trump’s appeal
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,580
Last seen: 2 hours, 18 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I think the point here is clear. Republicans are repugnant human beings... but so are Democrats. The Republicans have moved so far to the right, that they will soon be irrelevant, in my view. Democrats have followed them to the right. Democrats are what Republicans used to be.
We have no leftist party in the United States. That is why our country is turning into such a fucking shithole. There is no left-wing voice. We have to fix that.
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Wow, all we have in this country is left wing politics, the ignorance of your posts are stunning, luckily, you can keep your head in the sand and not have to defend such an absurd point of veiw
Lol. Did you know that Fox News is simultaneously considered the most biased and the most accurate news organization in America? Because you're both right. And wrong. From a European perspective (which coincides pretty closely with mine, what with being originally from that region of the world), America is stunningly right wing. Like, Bernie would have been a right leaning moderate. From an Iranian perspective, we're all hippies and Reagan was probably so far left he would have been imprisoned. Look into the concept of the "Overton window".
Unrelated note: I have found that right-wingers tend to rely more on emotional and personal attacks in their arguments (or, more accurately, fallacies, as emotional and personal attacks both have related and well explained fallacies behind them). Just an interesting observation.
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker
Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
Re: Republicans [Re: Kryptos] 2
#23484612 - 07/28/16 05:41 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I think the point here is clear. Republicans are repugnant human beings... but so are Democrats. The Republicans have moved so far to the right, that they will soon be irrelevant, in my view. Democrats have followed them to the right. Democrats are what Republicans used to be.
We have no leftist party in the United States. That is why our country is turning into such a fucking shithole. There is no left-wing voice. We have to fix that.
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Wow, all we have in this country is left wing politics, the ignorance of your posts are stunning, luckily, you can keep your head in the sand and not have to defend such an absurd point of veiw
Lol. Did you know that Fox News is simultaneously considered the most biased and the most accurate news organization in America? Because you're both right. And wrong. From a European perspective (which coincides pretty closely with mine, what with being originally from that region of the world), America is stunningly right wing. Like, Bernie would have been a right leaning moderate. From an Iranian perspective, we're all hippies and Reagan was probably so far left he would have been imprisoned. Look into the concept of the "Overton window".
Unrelated note: I have found that right-wingers tend to rely more on emotional and personal attacks in their arguments (or, more accurately, fallacies, as emotional and personal attacks both have related and well explained fallacies behind them). Just an interesting observation.
You literally stole the words I was going to say. Every time I ever debate a Republican they always say how "the media is so far left," which is far from true. The media and all of America leans right compared to the rest of western society.
Also, there are studies that actually prove exactly what you are saying. Republicans tend to use their amygdala to make decisions. This means they base most of their views on emotion. Liberals tend to use their left posterior insula. This means they tend to base most of their views on numbers, statistics, and logic.
--------------------
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
qman said: And when did the largest wealth and income inequality in 80 years take place? Under Obama!
He failed to restore taxes on the wealthy.
He tried, but the Repubs in Congress stone-walled him at every turned. Taxes did go up a bit, but only because of a compromise to get a overall budget passed.
|
spock
journeyman
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 1,165
|
|
Quote:
Le_Canard said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
qman said: And when did the largest wealth and income inequality in 80 years take place? Under Obama!
He failed to restore taxes on the wealthy.
He tried, but the Repubs in Congress stone-walled him at every turned. Taxes did go up a bit, but only because of a compromise to get a overall budget passed.
Dems fucked Obama by not voting in the midterms. Reps have blocked Obama just to be dicks. The sitting Pres is supposed to appoint supreme court judges. Republicans with their never ending pointless expensive investigations and attempted repeals have not been doing what they are paid to do. Just collecting checks while trying to look busy. Republicans should be ashamed of nominating Donald fucking Trump to represent their party. Hillary is more moderate than I would like and I won't argue that she is in some ways shady. I'd of preferred Bernie but I sure as hell would rather Clinton appointing judges than Trump. We need to make sure we get progressives into the senate to keep Hillary honest and I think she will do just fine.
Peace Spock
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Republicans [Re: spock] 1
#23485663 - 07/28/16 12:40 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spock said: Reps have blocked Obama just to be dicks.
They blocked him because he's a twit and his positions suck ass.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
spock
journeyman
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 1,165
|
|
The American voters elected him twice because of his positions.
Peace.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Republicans [Re: spock]
#23485926 - 07/28/16 02:07 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spock said: The American voters elected him twice because of his positions.
The American voters elected him because he's black. Which of course, has nothing to do with Congress blocking him because he's a twit and his positions sucking ass.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
spock said: The American voters elected him twice because of his positions.
The American voters elected him because he's black. Which of course, has nothing to do with Congress blocking him because he's a twit and his positions sucking ass.
Most of the policies of Obama have been the same as those of George W Bush, yet people run around pretending there is some dramatic difference. I have a friend who just loves GWB, and thinks Obama is the antichrist, or some crazy shit. They're the same guy, policy-wise. If not completely, very close.
I liked some of Obama's rhetoric before he was elected.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Bush was an asshole. It was clear though that he believes in the US.
Obama's a slightly bigger asshole. Obama believes in Obama.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Bush was an asshole. It was clear though that he believes in the US.
Obama's a slightly bigger asshole. Obama believes in Obama.
I don't know what that means.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
It means Obama's a self-centered, egotistical, arrogant piece of crap.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
You mean that "Yes we can" phrase?
A Foreign Intelligence Service report has revealed that US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia visited President Obama just hours before his suspicious death in Houston.
The secret meeting was held aboard a US Air Force plane heading to a Texas ranch owned by a close friend of Obama’s. http://topinfopost.com/2016/02/17/scalia-held-secret-meeting-with-obama-hours-before-death-coincidence
Just days after the Attorney General of the United States Loretta Lynch held a secret meeting aboard a plane with former President Bill Clinton – whose wife was under FBI investigation; just the day after Hillary leaked that she’d want Lynch for her own administration; just hours after the President of the United States Barack Obama flew Hillary – still under FBI investigation – down to North Carolina on Air Force One; just two hours before Obama was to open his campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey announced that while Hillary Clinton had clearly engaged in criminal activity worthy of prosecution, he had recommended that she not be prosecuted.http://www.dailywire.com/news/7177/fbi-yes-queen-hillary-broke-law-no-she-wont-be-ben-shapiro
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: It means Obama's a self-centered, egotistical, arrogant piece of crap.
I see very little difference between him and GWB, policy-wise. Obama is a better speaker, and better looking/younger. Both of them were impressively unqualified for the job. They both did pretty much the same shit.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Perhaps you missed where I said Bush was an asshole. But IMO Bush did the things he did because he believed they were in the best interests of the country. Obama has made it pretty clear he's more worried about his legacy.
Bush has a sense of modesty and decency that Obama will never have.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Perhaps you missed where I said Bush was an asshole. But IMO Bush did the things he did because he believed they were in the best interests of the country. Obama has made it pretty clear he's more worried about his legacy.
Bush has a sense of modesty and decency that Obama will never have.
Modesty and decency fall into the "traditional values" category, the left of today is all about Hollywood, glamour, and "the me generation" just look at the DNC convention for proof of that
|
spock
journeyman
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 1,165
|
|
Bush started 2 wars and did not raise the money to fight them. War is expensive and did not leave our country with much to work with when Obama took over. Add a do nothing congress and senate and, to me, it looks like Obama did pretty good considering what he was/is working with. GW Bush was a puppet of his vice pres.
Peace Spock
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Republicans [Re: spock]
#23486219 - 07/28/16 03:37 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps you also missed where I said Bush was an asshole.
Obama is a puppet of his ego.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Bush was an asshole, and I don't think he was any more concerned with the welfare of the country than Obama. I don't see any evidence of that anyway. Obama was also an asshole, the difference being, his entire platform when he was campaigning was lies. That's what the left does in America. The left practices centrist/right-wing politics, while campaigning on left-wing rhetoric and lies. The right runs on right-wing politics, and implements them.
We don't have a leftist party.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: spock]
#23486231 - 07/28/16 03:41 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spock said: Bush started 2 wars and did not raise the money to fight them. War is expensive and did not leave our country with much to work with when Obama took over. Add a do nothing congress and senate and, to me, it looks like Obama did pretty good considering what he was/is working with. GW Bush was a puppet of his vice pres.
Peace Spock
Bush started two wars along with a majority of democrats in congress, a coalition of countries, and the blessing of the UN
Why do leftists always forget who else was involved,
PRESIDENTS CANT DECLARE WAR BY THEMSELVES
FUCK PEACE
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: Bush was an asshole, and I don't think he was any more concerned with the welfare of the country than Obama. I don't see any evidence of that anyway. Obama was also an asshole, the difference being, his entire platform when he was campaigning was lies. That's what the left does in America. The left practices centrist/right-wing politics, while campaigning on left-wing rhetoric and lies. The right runs on right-wing politics, and implements them.
We don't have a leftist party.
Yeah you keep telling yourself that, unfortunately, the majority of Americans know damn well leftists are alive and well running the democrat party
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: We don't have a leftist party.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one
I do find it funny though, that you would say Bernie would have lose the election for self-identifying as a Socialist, yet you suggest we have a leftist party in the US.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
Edited by Bigbadwooof (07/28/16 04:01 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Leftist ≠ socialist.
And saying Bernie would lose because he's a self identified socialist ≠ he'd lose because we have a leftist party.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Leftist ≠ socialist.
And saying Bernie would lose because he's a self identified socialist ≠ he'd lose because we have a leftist party.
No, but Socialism encompasses a broad spectrum of left-wing policies, and the policies he's advocating are certainly on the tame end of that spectrum. The fact that Socialism isn't even taught in American schools, and that we don't have any place on the table to talk about it is a demonstration that we don't allow leftist politics in our politic discourse.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
spock
journeyman
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 1,165
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
spock said: Bush started 2 wars and did not raise the money to fight them. War is expensive and did not leave our country with much to work with when Obama took over. Add a do nothing congress and senate and, to me, it looks like Obama did pretty good considering what he was/is working with. GW Bush was a puppet of his vice pres.
Peace Spock
Bush started two wars along with a majority of democrats in congress, a coalition of countries, and the blessing of the UN
Why do leftists always forget who else was involved,
PRESIDENTS CANT DECLARE WAR BY THEMSELVES
FUCK PEACE
The point is he did not raise the money to fight 2 wars. He cut taxes. You can say fuck peace but peace is much more fiscally responsible. GWB Republican that plunged us into crippling debt leaving the world economy on the brink of disaster. The taxes GWBush cut were passed through the congress with 99% of Reps for vs only 3% Dems for and through the senate with Reps voting 48 yea to 3 nay and Dems voting 2 yea to 46 nay. You can't cut taxes and fight wars at the same time. Republicans try to pretend fiscal responsibility but turn around and bankrupt the country.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: spock]
#23486392 - 07/28/16 04:17 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
There ya go again, bush wasnt a king or dictator, every fucking policy that put us into recession, was voted in by republicans AND democrats,
|
spock
journeyman
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 1,165
|
|
You are wrong. Look up how the reps and dems voted. It is clear that dems voted against cutting taxes in 2003. War is expensive. Reps know this but figure "fuck it". The Democratic party has proved for over 30 years that it is the more fiscally responsible party.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: spock]
#23486591 - 07/28/16 05:19 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Cutting taxes didn't cause the recession, that's an absurd notion
|
spock
journeyman
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 1,165
|
|
It crushed us in debt. Clinton had just got us out of the hole that Reagan buried us in and here comes GW starting two wars and cutting taxes. Who benefited? Halliburton getting no-bid contracts on rebuilding shit that had not even been bombed yet. that much debt might not have caused the recession but it made our dollar weaker. It crushed us in debt. Debt requires interest. Interest compounds. Compounding interest on billions of dollars leads to debt in the trillions. Our economy has stabilized. And here come the Republicans nominating a man who brags about being the wizard of debt.
Peace Spock
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: spock]
#23487181 - 07/28/16 07:55 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
You think war caused the recession, debt doesn't cause it either.
It started from subprime mortgages, the govt force banks to make risky loans, that was instituted during Clinton, the effects of this shitty policy weren't felt immediately, it took time.
Blaming Bush for the recession is like blaming Nixon for Vietnam
|
spock
journeyman
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 1,165
|
Re: Republicans [Re: spock]
#23487284 - 07/28/16 08:26 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spock said: . that much debt might not have caused the recession
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
Re: Republicans [Re: spock]
#23487289 - 07/28/16 08:27 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spock said: You are wrong. Look up how the reps and dems voted. It is clear that dems voted against cutting taxes in 2003. War is expensive. Reps know this but figure "fuck it". The Democratic party has proved for over 30 years that it is the more fiscally responsible party.
Could be. Dem policies have also been tragic for the economy. Bill Clinton's free trade agreements, government guaranteed loan programs for housing and college tuition have been terrible for the economy, deregulation of the banks, etc.
If you think levying tax is the only factor in fiscal responsibility, then let's take a moment to appreciate the fact that Obama's tax rates were lower than Reagans for most of his presidency. I don't know if they are still right now, but I believe they are.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
Re: Republicans [Re: spock] 1
#23487298 - 07/28/16 08:30 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spock said: It crushed us in debt. Clinton had just got us out of the hole that Reagan buried us in and here comes GW starting two wars and cutting taxes. Who benefited? Halliburton getting no-bid contracts on rebuilding shit that had not even been bombed yet. that much debt might not have caused the recession but it made our dollar weaker. It crushed us in debt. Debt requires interest. Interest compounds. Compounding interest on billions of dollars leads to debt in the trillions. Our economy has stabilized. And here come the Republicans nominating a man who brags about being the wizard of debt.
Peace Spock
Obama has continued bush's tax cuts, and expanded the wars to 7+ different countries. Now we appear to be on the verge of initiating war with Russia.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:
spock said: It crushed us in debt. Clinton had just got us out of the hole that Reagan buried us in and here comes GW starting two wars and cutting taxes. Who benefited? Halliburton getting no-bid contracts on rebuilding shit that had not even been bombed yet. that much debt might not have caused the recession but it made our dollar weaker. It crushed us in debt. Debt requires interest. Interest compounds. Compounding interest on billions of dollars leads to debt in the trillions. Our economy has stabilized. And here come the Republicans nominating a man who brags about being the wizard of debt.
Peace Spock
Obama has continued bush's tax cuts, and expanded the wars to 7+ different countries. Now we appear to be on the verge of initiating war with Russia.
I believes that it is this person fault.
Duties of the Secretary of State
January 20, 2009 Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.
Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State’s duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties -- the activities and responsibilities of the State Department -- include the following:
Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy; Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs; Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States; Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives; Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments; Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies; Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements; Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries; Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad; Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries; Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations; Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries; Administers the Department of State; Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States. http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: If you think levying tax is the only factor in fiscal responsibility, then let's take a moment to appreciate the fact that Obama's tax rates were lower than Reagans for most of his presidency.
Let's take a moment to appreciate that Presidents do not set the tax rate.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: If you think levying tax is the only factor in fiscal responsibility, then let's take a moment to appreciate the fact that Obama's tax rates were lower than Reagans for most of his presidency.
Let's take a moment to appreciate that Presidents do not set the tax rate.
Low info voters believe they do
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: If you think levying tax is the only factor in fiscal responsibility, then let's take a moment to appreciate the fact that Obama's tax rates were lower than Reagans for most of his presidency.
Let's take a moment to appreciate that Presidents do not set the tax rate.
Let's take a moment to appreciate the fact that a President approves tax rates, and therefore influences them.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Influence? He either signs it or he doesn't.
Really dude... you got caught with your pants down on this one.
Sometimes the best reply is a simple... 'you're correct'.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Influence? He either signs it or he doesn't.
Really dude... you got caught with your pants down on this one.
Sometimes the best reply is a simple... 'you're correct'.
You don't think Reagan or Roosevelt had any influence on taxes?
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Presidents don't set the rates. That goes for Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.
Saying one President is good for keeping rates low (or high) and that another President is bad for doing the opposite, doesn't wash. Credit, or blame, falls on Congress.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Presidents don't set the rates. That goes for Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.
Saying one President is good for keeping rates low (or high) and that another President is bad for doing the opposite, doesn't wash. Credit, or blame, falls on Congress.
It falls on congress and the president, unless the congress overrides a presidents veto of their tax bill. Then it would fall squarely on the congress. The congress typically defers to the President and the Treasure Secretary's recommendations, and they work together to develop the tax rates, among other things.
You're making it sound as if the president is not involved in the process at all, aside from a 'Yea' or 'Nay', and that is not the case. So yes, generally speaking, a portion of responsibility certainly falls on the president, but also the congress, and the treasure secretary. That truly is the beauty of our system.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
I think you're kidding yourself.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: I think you're kidding yourself.
I'm not. I'm explaining the way things work.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Kidding yourself as in first it's the Bush or Obama tax rate and then it becomes the tax rates are a result of the President and Congress holding hands around a campfire and singing Kumbayah.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Presidents do not set the tax rate
Credit, or blame, falls on Congress.
Clearly, you don't quite get it. The President has the first and last word. This simple chart should help you understand:
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Congress sets the rate.
Sixteenth Amendment
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Perhaps you don't have a grasp on the meaning of the word 'request' found in the first panel. Let me help:
Quote:
re·quest rəˈkwest/ noun noun: request; plural noun: requests
1. an act of asking politely or formally for something. "a request for information" synonyms: appeal, entreaty, plea, petition, application, demand, call; More formaladjuration; literarybehest "requests for assistance" bidding, entreaty, demand, insistence "Charlotte spoke, at Ursula's request" a thing that is asked for. "to have our ideas taken seriously is surely a reasonable request" synonyms: requirement, wish, desire; choice "indicate your requests on the form" an instruction to a computer to provide information or perform another function. a tune or song played on a radio program, in some instances accompanied by a personal message, in response to a letter or call asking for it. archaic the state of being sought after. "human intelligence, which is in constant request in a family"
verb verb: request; 3rd person present: requests; past tense: requested; past participle: requested; gerund or present participle: requesting
1. politely or formally ask for. "he received the information he had requested" synonyms: ask for, appeal for, call for, seek, solicit, plead for, apply for, demand; formaladjure "the government requested military aid"
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
You don't appear to understand that the President has the final say.
Do you really think that Reagan should NOT be credited for the Reagan tax cuts?
If not, you're the only person I know who feels that way.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: You don't appear to understand that the President has the final say.
You don't appear to understand that reading the entire thread is key.
He either signs it or he doesn't.
So there it is. He can veto it, yet that still doesn't always give him the final say. There's always the over-ride and often even if a President doesn't get the rate he wants... he signs the budget anyway.
Now... any further stupidity you'd like to spout? Or are you done beclowning yourself?
Congress sets the rate.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
|
|
I don't think there's any question that presidents politically shape tax legislation, and many other forms of legislation, for that matter. We are at an all time low in this, but the president and congress historically have worked together, as in theory this should happen. I will say that at the moment, such a dynamic is largely absent (for obvious reasons), but normally things work that way. You seem to have a hard-on not to lose face in this thread.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Who sets the rate?
Before you answer...
Sixteenth Amendment
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
My 'hard-on' as you so moronically put it, is for accuracy. The constitution states who has the power, not me.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
If your hard on is for "accuracy", the 16th amendment simply allowed congress to levy an income tax. It said nothing about how rates would be set.
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 gave the President the power to submit the annual budget for the entire federal government.
Yes, that budget goes to Congress for review and approval and to tweek a bit, but the President has the first say (which sets the tone for Congress) and he also gets the final say.
For you to believe that Reagan wasn't responsible for the Reagan tax cuts is simply .
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Let's go through it one step at a time...
1. The President makes a proposal.
2. Congress sets the rate.
3. The President either agrees or disagrees with what Congress has done.
4. If the President signs on, the rate Congress set is the rate.
5. If he doesn't sign on, it starts again at step 1.
Did I miss the part where the President magically gains the power to set the rate?
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: If your hard on is for "accuracy", the 16th amendment simply allowed congress to levy an income tax. It said nothing about how rates would be set.
Sure it does.
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Congress sets the rate.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Let's go through it one step at a time...
1. The President makes a proposal.
2. Congress sets the rate. determines whether to accept the President's proposal or offer a counter proposal.
3. The President either agrees or disagrees with what Congress has done.
4. If the President signs on, the rate Congress set is the rate close enough to the rate the President initially proposed for him to sign.
5. If he doesn't sign on, it starts again at step 1.
Did I miss the part where the President magically gains the power to set the rate?
I revised your summary above to make it even more accurate.
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
lFalcon91Wolvrn03 said: If your hard on is for "accuracy", the 16th amendment simply allowed congress to levy an income tax. It said nothing about how rates would be set.
Sure it does.
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Congress sets the rate.
I missed it in your quote above. Does anyone else here see it, or is LDS once again going to defend another losing argument?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Let's go through it one step at a time...
1. The President makes a proposal.
2. Congress sets the rate. determines whether to accept the President's proposal or offer a counter proposal sets the rate.
3. The President either agrees or disagrees with what Congress has done.
4. If the President signs on, the rate Congress set is the rate close enough to the rate the President initially proposed for him to sign the rate.
5. If he doesn't sign on, it starts again at step 1.
Did I miss the part where the President magically gains the power to set the rate?
I revised your summary above to make it even more accurate.
Your alterations were inaccurate. The President doesn't write the bill. He doesn't get to force a rate. It doesn't become the rate simply because he wishes it be so. A 'proposal' doesn't become an edict simply because the President wishes it to be so.
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
lFalcon91Wolvrn03 said: If your hard on is for "accuracy", the 16th amendment simply allowed congress to levy an income tax. It said nothing about how rates would be set.
Sure it does.
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Congress sets the rate.
I missed it in your quote above. Does anyone else here see it, or is LDS once again going to defend another losing argument?
I'll put it separately then... "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes"
So seeing as you seem to agree that after Congress is done the President can only agree/sign or disagree/veto, where's part where the President magically gains the power to set the rate?
Appealing to others won't change the accuracy of my statements.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
I think by now everyone here gets it but you. Feel free to keep trying to convince yourself though.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Convince myself that Congress sets the rate? I don't have to convince myself of what is true.
The President 'proposes' a rate. Congress 'sets' a rate.
Propose ≠ set.
I get it just fine.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Saying one President is good for keeping rates low (or high) and that another President is bad for doing the opposite, doesn't wash. Credit, or blame, falls on Congress.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
mycoprog
Modular Heretic
Registered: 01/12/06
Posts: 797
Loc: N. America
|
|
Do you believe that Reagan was responsible for his tax cuts?
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
I believe Reagan made a proposal and Congress set the rate. Which is precisely what I've been saying all along.
A President cannot raise, lower or set tax rates.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Really? A poll?
You could have at least been honest about it.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Really? A poll?
You could have at least been honest about it.
What do you mean? It is a question, not a statement. I even quoted your original statement that started this whole discussion. You're really desperate to save a losing argument.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
No, honest about what you seem to really want to ask.
"Do you guys really, really, really like me and is lds (despite knowing the difference between 'propose' and 'set') just a big, old, mean poopy head?"
Check one: Y___ N___
The President 'proposes'. Congress 'sets'. The President either signs off or vetos. If he signs off, the rate Congress 'set' is the rate. If he vetos it goes back to the beginning. As that's what happens, the argument was won some time ago.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,580
Last seen: 2 hours, 18 minutes
|
|
Gonna skip this whole tax thing because...Who gives a shit? Taxes get set by a combo of the two. If that is off-topic enough to get edited, then so be it. Let's go back to something from way earlier that I found interesting.
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
spock said: Bush started 2 wars and did not raise the money to fight them. War is expensive and did not leave our country with much to work with when Obama took over. Add a do nothing congress and senate and, to me, it looks like Obama did pretty good considering what he was/is working with. GW Bush was a puppet of his vice pres.
Peace Spock
Bush started two wars along with a majority of democrats in congress, a coalition of countries, and the blessing of the UN
Why do leftists always forget who else was involved,
PRESIDENTS CANT DECLARE WAR BY THEMSELVES
FUCK PEACE
No, but presidents, being the commanders in chief, can declare police actions. The US has not officially been in a declared state of war (by congress) since WWII. Of course, that didn't stop us from Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again, Iraq again, and ISIS nowadays. The US hasn't fought a war in over 70 years, but somehow we still have non-geriatric troops overseas dying for I'm no longer sure what (mostly because I really don't care, sorry, vets, pick a better career. Maybe that way you'll actually get benefits).
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: Kryptos]
#23502407 - 08/02/16 04:03 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Only for so long, then they need an act of congress to continue, that's why Iraq and Afghanistan were both sanctioned by the US congress
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,580
Last seen: 2 hours, 18 minutes
|
|
Not in cases of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Based on the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: Kryptos]
#23502459 - 08/02/16 04:21 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: Not in cases of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Based on the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Okay, so in cases that don't fall under that, then what authority is used?
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,580
Last seen: 2 hours, 18 minutes
|
|
I don't know, seeing as how every case I listed either fell under that law or preceded it (in the specific case of Korea and Vietnam). It would be interesting if there was a single precedent that was not ruled legal under the above mentioned law.
EDIT: maybe you could argue that the bombing of Kosovo under Clinton was not sanctioned by congress under that law, but on the other hand it didn't last long enough to need congressional confirmation.
SECOND EDIT: I would also like to mention that the US is currently under 29 official state of emergencies. Most of these affect trade exclusively, but not all. Five of them establish the entire world as a target, under the guise of terrorism, cyberterrorism, and protection from weapons of mass destruction. One of the worldwide states of emergency specifies trade, and the Export Administrations Act, and another refers to transnational criminal organizations, which I assume means cartels, but can be extended to encompass any crime that crosses international borders. Sorta like the FBI and state borders. By invoking any of these, the president can drop troops anywhere in the world without congressional oversight or approval indefinitely.
Edited by Kryptos (08/02/16 04:36 PM)
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Republicans [Re: Kryptos]
#23502482 - 08/02/16 04:27 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: I don't know, seeing as how every case I listed either fell under that law or preceded it (in the specific case of Korea and Vietnam). It would be interesting if there was a single precedent that was not ruled legal under the above mentioned law.
EDIT: maybe you could argue that the bombing of Kosovo under Clinton was not sanctioned by congress under that law, but on the other hand it didn't last long enough to need congressional confirmation.
Correct, my understanding is 90 days without congressional approval, after that, congress must be consulted, that's why almost EVERY SINGLE democrat voted for Iraq war
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Saying one President is good for keeping rates low (or high) and that another President is bad for doing the opposite, doesn't wash. Credit, or blame, falls on Congress.
I just dug up this old gem showing how little congress impacts the budget:
Notice how close the final number always is to the President's request.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Saying one President is good for keeping rates low (or high) and that another President is bad for doing the opposite, doesn't wash. Credit, or blame, falls on Congress.
I just dug up this old gem showing how little congress impacts the budget:
Notice how close the final number always is to the President's request.
I love how you just step in and put shit to rest with your charts, and whatnot. Although, I haven't checked your source.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Notice how close the final number always is to the President's request.
Thanks. That's twice in one thread you confirmed my position.
The President 'proposes'. Congress 'sets'.
That doesn't change whether or not Congress goes along.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I love how you just step in and put shit to rest with your charts, and whatnot.
Perhaps that will actually happen here. It hasn't yet.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
I get your semantics argument. The question is who has the most influence on the budget, and that's very clearly the President. The chart above (and apparently the poll above) shows that to be the case.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
Notice how close the final number always is to the President's request.
Thanks. That's twice in one thread you confirmed my position.
The President 'proposes'. Congress 'sets'.
That doesn't change whether or not Congress goes along.
The president actually 'sets' in most cases. He proposes, and then turns around and approves it. Congress would need a very good reason, with overwhelming support to override the president on a budget proposal.
So yes, congress plays a role in the process, but the president's role is at least as influential as congress, if not more.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I love how you just step in and put shit to rest with your charts, and whatnot. Although, I haven't checked your source.
Here's the source: http://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/p/57.html
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: The president actually 'sets' in most cases. He proposes, and then turns around and approves it.
Exactly. He's got the first and last say.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Haven't looked at your poll. The childishness was too much.
You chart doesn't prove anything. You're very clearly kidding yourself.
The President can only propose. He can't set the rate. Those that set have the influence.
Your parents can propose you get a better job (increase revenue). Only you can do it.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: The President 'proposes'. Congress 'sets'. The President either signs off or vetos. If he signs off, the rate Congress 'set' is the rate. If he vetos it goes back to the beginning. As that's what happens, the argument was won some time ago.
I would consider 'signing off' setting the rate. It's not set until the president signs off on it. It is a collaborative process, clearly, and you're making it out to be something very different.
From Falcon's graph, we can see that the president is the most influential figure on the budget. You may not be willing to concede, but the evidence of that fact is quite persuasive.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: He's got the first and last say.
Nope. His is a request followed by a yes or no. He has no way of setting the rate or forcing Congress to set a rate.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Haven't looked at your poll. The childishness was too much.
You chart doesn't prove anything. You're very clearly kidding yourself.
The President can only propose. He can't set the rate. Those that set have the influence.
Your parents can propose you get a better job (increase revenue). Only you can do it.
Yes, but my parents can't veto my employment decision lol. That analogy doesn't work at all. It is congress who brings a proposal to the president, who signs or vetos. Congress can propose an increase in revenue, but the president makes the final decision, generally speaking.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I would consider 'signing off' setting the rate.
Nope. That's the President agreeing to the rate Congress set. Otherwise the rate would always be what the President wants.
Quote:
the evidence of that fact is quite persuasive.
The 'evidence' presented so far is laughable.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: I would consider 'signing off' setting the rate.
Nope. That's the President agreeing to the rate Congress set. Otherwise the rate would always be what the President wants.
Quote:
the evidence of that fact is quite persuasive.
The 'evidence' presented so far is laughable.
The rate pretty much is always what the president wants. As I said, it's a collaborative process between congress and the president. You want to pretend that the president has no impact on the budget, and that is just not accurate.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: The 'evidence' presented so far is laughable.
Everyone here is laughing at you. Take the poll. At least that would give your side one vote.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: It is congress who brings a proposal to the president, who signs or vetos.
Except... no. All the President can do is request and then approve or deny.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: The 'evidence' presented so far is laughable.
Everyone here is laughing at you. Take the poll. At least that would give your side one vote.
The laughter would only have an affect if I was wrong.
The childish comment came as no surprise.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: You want to pretend that the president has no impact on the budget, and that is just not accurate.
If the President had no impact, the budget wouldn't require his yes or no. He has no power to set the rate... still.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Perhaps a history lesson is in order.
Quote:
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,047
Last seen: 6 hours, 55 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: You want to pretend that the president has no impact on the budget, and that is just not accurate.
If the President had no impact, the budget wouldn't require his yes or no. He has no power to set the rate... still.
Ok, well I feel like we're just spinning our wheels at this point, so I'm going to call it a day on this one.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
You and your bud should have done that days ago. It's too easy to verify who does what just by reading the Constitution.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
Democrats want a dictator as president, the sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker
Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Democrats want a dictator as president, the sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be
Says the full blown Trump supporter
The democrats wanted Bernie so....
--------------------
Edited by big_scrappy97 (08/16/16 12:42 AM)
|
Connoisseur
Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 34,686
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Douglas Howard said:
If its not rigged ill be shocked
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,752
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 hours, 37 minutes
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Democrats want a dictator as president, the sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be
Yeah nothing screams checks and balances like Donald Trump.
--------------------
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
I wonder why none of the parties ever suggested to have prison inmates to work in the fields to pay for their stay and help pay for others that are in prisons that cannot work. Why give that revenue to other countries? The inmates have a prison bank account, that family or friends deposit the money in their account. And those that can work, but do not want to go out work out in the fields, that what ever that is deposited in their account, that the prison administration will take the money from their account for their stay. But if they do not want them to take from their account, then they must work in the fields. And the ones that claims that they are too ill to do anything, then at recreation time, that they can only go outside by themselves in a 4 feet by 4 feet yard and cannot associate with any other inmates as well. Because since they are sickly, that it will be wrongful to have them around other inmate while they are so defenseless. If anyone that is against it, that they feel as if they are creating free slave labor or taking jobs away from those that are not incarcerated. Then the state should have them that opposes the ideal, to work out in the fields. This will help out a lot with the deficit. No more free loading in the prison system.
City’s Annual Cost Per Inmate Is $168,000, Study Finds http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-cost-per-inmate-is-nearly-168000-study-says.html?_r=0
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,752
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 hours, 37 minutes
|
|
^ lol. Prison labor IS a thing. But the proceeds go to (you guessed it!) big corporations, not to the taxpayer footing the bill of the incarcerated.
--------------------
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
The Ecstatic said: ^ lol. Prison labor IS a thing. But the proceeds go to (you guessed it!) big corporations, not to the taxpayer footing the bill of the incarcerated.
No it will not go to them that if the checks are made out to the state institution that the inmates are incarcerated in. And now there will be no more early release because of over crowding in the prison system. They will be very glad to keep the inmates for an extra day or two. Nobody will never here any inmates ever saying that they will be lock up for a minute, and then they'll be released the next day because of over crowding. And it will not be draining the federal taxes any more, but the inmates will become productive citizens, eventhough they are not released from prison, but they will be great help for the economy.
This is the speech that they should give to every inmate that comes in before they are assigned to work out in the fields. A speech to pump them up.
|
Douglas Howard
Stranger
Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 1,678
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
I'm talking about the money that is given to the migrants workers, but now some of it will be given to help house inmates. And then our country will be great again.
|
|