RE: Translation from Republicanese (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


lockedaway -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/15/2011 1:14:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

It has become quite apparent that his only desire in posting is to name call, belittle and derail threads.  Why we entertain him, I have no clue... but for myself... I am done


Really?  That idiot gnat knottedhead couldn't/wouldn't answer the question posed to Music.  Your blatantly stupid response was "let them eat cake".  You are done with me?  I name call?  With a stupid response like that, am I not to say you are stupid?  Or irrelevant?  An idiot?  Do you even know why Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake?" 

You rail against me because I make sense and the kind of UGLY sense that no want wants to admit that this country needs.  No one wants to see budgets slashed or the resulting hardship therefrom.  But you just saw days of it in England and days of it in Greece and what I can honestly say is this:  AND NOW MARK MY FUCKING WORDS, that is coming to the U.S. and the people that should rightfully fall prey to it are the liberals that continue to encourage it.  :)  Now...................be done with me.




Moonhead -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/15/2011 1:17:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

I'm sure you can demonstrate that DYB and O59 have both resorted to ad hominem namecalling when dealing with you, then?
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

That wasn't namecalling, dear boy.
Are you quite sure you're a solicitor?


<whistles> You are pretty stupid.  And that is not an ad hominem attack, that is the truth and truth is a defense to libel...you know that, right???

You said this: "I'm sure you can demonstrate that DYB and O59 have both resorted to ad hominem namecalling when dealing with you, then?"

In response to you, DumbYoungBlack said this:

"Yes, yes he can. lol"  What DumbYoungBlack did was answer you in saying that I could show ad hominem attacks from, at least, DumbYoungBlack.  Therefore, DumbYoungBlack has admitted to making ad hominem attacks.  Got it........stupid???


So you've got nothing, then.
Thought so.




DomYngBlk -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/15/2011 1:32:07 PM)

You were expecting, what?




mnottertail -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/15/2011 1:33:19 PM)

Really? That idiot gnat knottedhead couldn't/wouldn't answer the question posed to Music.

Uck.
If a question is posed to Music, why the fuck should I care to answer in his stead? I am not obliged to answer every single shiteaters question out here.







Moonhead -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/15/2011 1:34:07 PM)

Something other than hairsplitting and an attempt to argue that what he said wasn't actually what he said.

Naive of me, I know.




Sanity -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/15/2011 1:34:28 PM)


Right, dyb is a moron

I might read his posts for entertainment value on occasion but thats about it

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

It has become quite apparent that his only desire in posting is to name call, belittle and derail threads.  Why we entertain him, I have no clue... but for myself... I am done


I assume youre talking about DYB. I was done with him after his 3rd post.




Owner59 -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/15/2011 3:21:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Right, dyb is a moron

I might read his posts for entertainment value on occasion but thats about it

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

It has become quite apparent that his only desire in posting is to name call, belittle and derail threads.  Why we entertain him, I have no clue... but for myself... I am done


I assume youre talking about DYB. I was done with him after his 3rd post.


Says the hate-filled rightwing extremists.

Which translated from republicanese, is a compliment.




MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/15/2011 4:26:08 PM)

Sheesh...

I go to the office and come back to my thread (reading from my phone on the ride home) and find that the discussion has broken down into personal attacks.


When I left, I was responding to the assertion made by two different posters, that the Tea Party understands our economy, and particularly our capitalist system, significantly better than I do.

I find this assertion amusing. However, I am always open to learning new things. Therefore I asked for an explanation of that assertion. I have received none.

Was that just a rhetoric attack?


I do not know, as the discussion has degraded into name-calling.


(Posted from my phone on a moving shuttle, so I apologize for spelling and punctuation errors)




MusicalBoredom -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/15/2011 4:58:31 PM)

Oh come on locked, I didn't say anywhere in any of my posts that I thought health insurance should be free.  I said it should be regulated.  And in answer to your questions yes we do regulate other needs such as electricity.  I doesn't mean that people get free power it means that power providers can't take advantage of the consumer.

As to what rhetoric, when I hear politicians say empty popular thoughts such as "cut spending" without any plan or data or hard facts to support a detailed solution then it's just talk, in other words, rhetoric.  If you read my actual words I asked what we would do with all of those adults and children if we just cut them off.  We have to include what we will do with the huge numbers of people that would be affected.  I don't have a plan for that.  I look to the people that I vote for to come up with that plan.  I don't think that it's responsible to say we are not going to raise taxes and we are going to cut spending without an actual plan.  Again, a desire does not equal a plan! 

I have a client that came to me and said we wanted to develop a new piece of software and said his budget was $8,000.  I looked at what he wanted and told him I couldn't do it for that.  He was pissed.  He went to about 20 other places and they all said the same thing.  He came back to me and agreed, in a written contract, to my hourly rate which resulted in a lot more than $8,000 when we were finished.  I had to sue him to get paid.  He only looked at his desire rather than the facts and he was under the delusion that his desires were a plan.

There is no way to have a budget discussion with meaning without all parties becoming willing to talk about both revenue increases and spending decreases.  Those talks should also have a real plan with real numbers.

ETA: My questions and opinions aren't reasons why things can't be changed, they are reasons why "cut welfare" isn't a workable plan without our officials applying some sort of plan that addresses everything fully.  I know that we can change things.  Can and will aren't always the same thing though.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/15/2011 9:16:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Tantrum time....[sm=popcorn.gif]


Yeah, she has more and more of them lately.




MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/16/2011 5:47:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


Please explain how:


1) The Tea Party understands our economy (particularly our capitalist system) better than I do
2) I am not conservative (based on your definition)






Is an explanation forthcoming?




lockedaway -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/16/2011 7:38:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom

Oh come on locked, I didn't say anywhere in any of my posts that I thought health insurance should be free.  I said it should be regulated.  And in answer to your questions yes we do regulate other needs such as electricity.  I doesn't mean that people get free power it means that power providers can't take advantage of the consumer.

As to what rhetoric, when I hear politicians say empty popular thoughts such as "cut spending" without any plan or data or hard facts to support a detailed solution then it's just talk, in other words, rhetoric.  If you read my actual words I asked what we would do with all of those adults and children if we just cut them off.  We have to include what we will do with the huge numbers of people that would be affected.  I don't have a plan for that.  I look to the people that I vote for to come up with that plan.  I don't think that it's responsible to say we are not going to raise taxes and we are going to cut spending without an actual plan.  Again, a desire does not equal a plan! 

I have a client that came to me and said we wanted to develop a new piece of software and said his budget was $8,000.  I looked at what he wanted and told him I couldn't do it for that.  He was pissed.  He went to about 20 other places and they all said the same thing.  He came back to me and agreed, in a written contract, to my hourly rate which resulted in a lot more than $8,000 when we were finished.  I had to sue him to get paid.  He only looked at his desire rather than the facts and he was under the delusion that his desires were a plan.

There is no way to have a budget discussion with meaning without all parties becoming willing to talk about both revenue increases and spending decreases.  Those talks should also have a real plan with real numbers.

ETA: My questions and opinions aren't reasons why things can't be changed, they are reasons why "cut welfare" isn't a workable plan without our officials applying some sort of plan that addresses everything fully.  I know that we can change things.  Can and will aren't always the same thing though.



I don't really have the time to engage in this today but there are simple solutions, Musical and they do not include increasing taxes.  The simplest solution, of course is to cut spending across the board.  That is the easiest and most direct way of doing things.  It will cause hardship...not doubt about it but such is life.  There is no way to stop the death spiral without some real hardship coming to huge numbers of people.  Ok...so you don't want to cut?  Alright...go back to the 2008 Federal budget and freeze it for ten years.  You DO realize that would be a pretty substantial cut according to the Congressional Budget Office, right?  In fact, they would score it has having reduced out debt by 80% after the tenth year.  That, of course, is bullshit, right?  Because we haven't "CUT" anything, we have simply capped.  But, I say that is not enough.  There have to be cuts, salary caps, pension reforms and reforms to health care that spur private sector insurance providers.

You want to increase taxes?  If you increase taxes on those making a billion dollars per year or more and raised their rate to an INSANE 40%, it would raise approximately 40 billion dollars per year according to Ben Stein who actually FAVORS such a plan.  Tell me, Musical, what percentage is 40 billion dollars of 1.6 trillion?  Does it seem like a drop in the pocket to you?  It sure does to me.  IF increasing that tax rate causes those millionaires and billionaires to fire enough people to cause the unemployment rate to go up by half of one percent, what have you accomplished?  If, in addition to causing even a small rise in unemployment, those people lay off their consumer spending or move out of high tax areas like L.A. and NYC, what have you gained????????  Tell me, Musical, a man loses 35% of his income to the Fed, 9% to the State of New Jersey (if he lived in NY he would lose money to NY State and NY City), pays his real estate taxes and every other toll, permit, license, surcharge, line tax, gas tax, sin tax, luxury tax....etc. how much higher do you think the percentage should be? 

You already spend your year (I'm saying "your" because there are a lot of people on this board that don't earn a fucking penny and so this argument means NOTHING to them) working until August 12 to pay the various governments in our country.  That leaves you with 19 days in August, all of September, October, November and December to work for you.  Now Musical is in charge and you want to push August 12 back to September 1?  Or would you prefer October 1?  Exactly how much of the fruits of someone's labor should a "free" person be allowed to keep?




MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/16/2011 7:34:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Theon38

I think the Tea Party is a response to the feelings behind the chart.




There are many problems with the "Tea Party" Not the least of which is their complete lack of understanding of how our economy works. They don't understand how capitalism works.


They understand it a helluva lot better than you, unless you let your partisan bullshit ("conservative"? youre not fooling anyone) disguise your knowledge.



So??? What do they understand a "helluva lot" better than I?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/16/2011 7:42:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Theon38

I think the Tea Party is a response to the feelings behind the chart.




There are many problems with the "Tea Party" Not the least of which is their complete lack of understanding of how our economy works. They don't understand how capitalism works.


They understand it a helluva lot better than you, unless you let your partisan bullshit ("conservative"? youre not fooling anyone) disguise your knowledge.



So??? What do they understand a "helluva lot" better than I?


Theres no need to correct all your errors again.




domiguy -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/16/2011 7:45:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Theon38

quote:

I am waiting. Who is the Tea Party sponsoring?


This is a misconception created by the media and the Democrats who are unable to understand the concept of grassroots.

There is no actual Tea Party, like there is a Republican Party or a Democrat Party.

The Tea Party is an idea. It's not a party. It's like saying who is sponsoring Conservative? Or who is sponsoring Liberal?

The Tea Party is American's who are fed up with the political system in the United States, specifically the liberal political system which believe in tax and spend policies. Tea party people do not agree on social ideas, but they find their common ground in the arena of economics. They tend to be those who support business (large and small) and those who support lower spending and lower taxation. I'd say a strong military is also part of the idea behind the Tea Party.

So, who is the Tea Party sponsoring?

Everyone who fits the ideals.


Ha ha ha ha...Can't wait for the teaparty to find more people that fit their "ideals."

Where are the next Christine O'Donnells hiding?




Moonhead -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/17/2011 4:38:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Theon38

I think the Tea Party is a response to the feelings behind the chart.




There are many problems with the "Tea Party" Not the least of which is their complete lack of understanding of how our economy works. They don't understand how capitalism works.


They understand it a helluva lot better than you, unless you let your partisan bullshit ("conservative"? youre not fooling anyone) disguise your knowledge.



So??? What do they understand a "helluva lot" better than I?


Theres no need to correct all your errors again.

You didn't make any attempt to "correct" (or even answer) them in the first place. That's why he's repeated his questions from three or four pages back above.




MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/17/2011 5:39:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Theon38

I think the Tea Party is a response to the feelings behind the chart.




There are many problems with the "Tea Party" Not the least of which is their complete lack of understanding of how our economy works. They don't understand how capitalism works.


They understand it a helluva lot better than you, unless you let your partisan bullshit ("conservative"? youre not fooling anyone) disguise your knowledge.



So??? What do they understand a "helluva lot" better than I?


Theres no need to correct all your errors again.



LOL.... That's your response?


You have never corrected anything I have said, on any post on any thread (at least that I can recall). (Let alone even RESPOND to the question above on THIS thread)


You have, however, called me an "idiot". (One of your debating tactics)

Perhaps you should go back to reading Craig Steiner, and other thoroughly debunked faux-conservatives to supply you with thoughts. (Maybe Beck?)




cloudboy -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/17/2011 6:56:44 AM)


That chart is dead on.




MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Translation from Republicanese (8/20/2011 10:59:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

As a conservative (by my own definition) ...

So ... what is your definition of "a conservative", anyway?

Firm




I have been wanting to address this, and now that I have a quiet moment, I shall :)

I can speak for my own values only. Here are but a few :)

A) Right-size Government. (Not automatically small government for small government's sake). Extreme liberals use government as an ATM to throw money at groups of people who are ill-equipped to do anything productive with it. (and of course, there are the select few liberals who make money off this venture (e.g. Jesse Jackson)). Republicans use government as an ATM for their donors. (Entire INDUSTRIES have risen out of Republican policies) (2 that quickly come to mind, are Data Miners (voter suppression), and Military Security firms (wars based on false pretenses)). Corporations write Republican bills. Corporations set the Republican agenda, and they do everything they can to ensure that our money flows to their coffers and NO ONE can regulate them.

First and foremost, I am a capitalist. I will vehemently protect our capitalist system. I realize the NECESSITY of regulating those who try to exploit it (and destroy it) for their own personal gain.

I see government's role as follows: (among other things)
1) Protect our capitalist system. (It is KEY to the freedom and relative prosperity that we enjoy). That means setting clear rules and boundaries as to what we can and cannot do.
2) Provide for the general welfare of the citizens (e.g. IMO, healthcare is definitely NOT a right. It IS however, good public policy to ensure that everyone has access to basic healthcare) This is GREAT for our capitalist system (more explanation below)
3) Protect our freedom. (I wholeheartedly agree with the Tea Party in their opposition to the Patriot Act)
4) Defend our country from attack


B) Capitalism
As I have stated before... This is a cornerstone of our freedom and liberty. Whether one is a business owner, selling one's goods and services, or one who provides his/her labor in support of his/her employer, it does not matter. Contrary to modern Republican dogma, BOTH are capitalists. BOTH are EQUALLY important to the system. Capitalism thrives when EVERYONE actively participates. Frankly, anyone who does not participate (whether or not it is their own fault), is an immediate burden to the system. (That is why it is good public policy to get everyone access to basic healthcare. Unhealthy people cannot participate).

The engine of our capitalism is the consumer. The middle class. The middle class do the spending and move the economy along. THEY are the job creators. If the middle class is doing well, the economy is doing well. The converse is certainly true as well.


C) Family Values
(No not in some creepy Ralph Reed sort of way)... I am sorry, I can't be as specific this time...
I believe the strength of America lies in its people. I believe that we grow stronger as a culture when strengthen our family units. (e.g. A strong focus on the morals and examples we want to impart to our children. A strong focus on parenting in general. I can tell you, having been a leader in the corporate world for 25 years, the toughest leadership assignment I have ever had is being a parent. (And I am still learning)). BTW: I realize that a percentage of the adults in America are (and always have been) homosexual. Whether or not a homosexual couple has children, I believe America benefits when homosexuals (and all Americans) focus and strengthen their family units.


D) Heterosexual marriages
For heterosexual marriages, I agree 100% with Michelle Bachmann (what she SAYS, not the B.S. cop out/spin that she later spewed). I believe that wives should indeed be submissive to their husbands. I do not believe this because it says so in a religious text. Rather, I believe this because, in every marriage that I have observed (in which both spouses were reasonable intelligent adults), the success of that marriage was DIRECTLY proportional to the dominance of the husband, and the submission of the wife. (Once again, among reasonable, intelligent adults... If EITHER spouse fails this test, the marriage will fail in any case.)


Obviously, I have many more, but, my job as a parent tops my posting activities :)




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875