10.65 BILLION..

pdalowsky

Your arrogance is untold

As you are clearly a know it all and refuse to 'debate' anything and prefer to talk down to anyone who doesn't read your page this is hopeless

However as a guy who keeps chirping on about message board debates being a waste of your (clearly precious) time you sure struggle to stay away

And do you not just totally contradict yourself here ;-

'documented personal history? Was it all of his non-radical associations? What exactly got him elected? Hope and change… hollow promises based on a false premise that things were actually bad. How exactly is he a vast improvement over his predecessor? Things have gone from bad to worse since he took over'

So Obama was falsely playing things up as bad? Yet he has taken things from bad to worse? So Obama was right things were bad?

Anyway - you make it sound like your welfare state is to blame for rhe present 'crisis' and make no inclusion of the banking industry that crippled the global economy or it's obviously highly motivated and industrious workers or 'the billions your previous main man blew up whilst telling untold lies.... But sure you blame Obama....

Any proposals on how to deal with the welfare issue? Would love to hear them. We here in the Uk have a similar state of affairs, but I'd rather we looked after people who are less fortunate than cast them aside as rubbish, to stave or die of Ill health care...

Sure it's frustrating to see our hard earned taxes wasted at times but I'd love to know how you'd do it better.

For the record I have never claimed a benefit in my life so feel free to try and talk to me on an intellectual level ..... I own my own company, have two degrees etc so please don't come across high and mighty again - it's not big and it's not clever. Try and debate like a grown up?

MG79478 wrote:

pdalowsky wrote:

your first paragraph is pettiness personified, and really adds nothing.

to suggest Obama was elected by TV is nothing but a horribly hollow comment. Im from the Uk, and although I dont live in the states consider i have a fair understanding of your politics as well as our own. Forget whether he is muslim or not, after all does this really matter?, and lets focus on the fact that he is a vast improvement on his predecessor. I think thats clear to the whole world.

Is there any need to use terms as condescending as 'let me try to dumb this down for you'....it seems you are determined to thrust forward the notion that you have such a superior intellect that you have to talk down to people to try and force a point forward without any hint of substance.

I really dont care but Go Beavers asked you why all of a sudden its a crisis? rather than address his points you seem to try the point scoring schoolyard insults such as 'if google proves too challenging'.

Pathetic, whereas you suggest he should man up, seems to me that you should grow up.

My first sentence is just a dose of reality. I’m sorry if you think debating on message boards will actually accomplish anything other than wasting my time! If you really feel the need to chime in, you should read all the posts first. Because the debate wasn’t over whether or not he is a muslim, it’s over religious ambiguity of a candidate. So if you actually understood the debate, you would realize that he was proven wrong and that he should “man up”.

Ok, so you say Obama wasn’t just glamorized by TV, and was elected for some other reason? Please enlighten me… Was it his experience as a politician? Experience as an executive? Was it his ability to deliver a speech without a teleprompter? Was it is well documented personal history? Was it all of his non-radical associations? What exactly got him elected? Hope and change… hollow promises based on a false premise that things were actually bad. How exactly is he a vast improvement over his predecessor? Things have gone from bad to worse since he took over. I guess the rest of the world is happy that he is dragging America down to their level.

Go Beavers ignored PLENTY of my questions, typical for this board. So I reserve the right to not answer anything I damn well please. Why not rag on him for not answering all of my questions? For the record, I did answer his question on why we have a culture crisis; he just refuses to hear the answer. Why doesn’t he try to prove that there isn’t a culture crisis in this country, instead of putting the burden of proof on me? He tried to put forth some very misleading data, but failed at showing anything. It’s quite obvious that something is wrong. Maybe he is in the class of people that gives very little to the government and takes a lot… and everything seems alright to him?

This has turned in to a typical debate on this board. Let’s face it; there are more liberals on this board than conservatives (cue sheep sound affect). It’s great that you feel the need to gang up on and attack those of us who don’t live in your fantasy world, I’m sure that validates you. As for being “condescending”, that is just more diversion from the debate at hand. It doesn’t help your case when you need simple things explained slowly to you, and if that comes off as condescending, then so be it. That is just a function of the other person’s intelligence and is outside of my control.

MG79478

So I’m back from a business trip. I didn't expect you to actually address anything I posted, and at least you liberals are consistent! I like your style of debating… First off you don’t address almost anything the other side brings up. When you do address something, I like how you instantly invalidate everything you don’t like, and validate what you do like, solely based on your biased opinion.

Go Beavers wrote:

You have an interesting style, MG.

Most of you post is completely incoherent, and I'm not going to address it, with the exception of the following “low hanging fruit”.

pdalowsky wrote:

Any proposals on how to deal with the welfare issue? Would love to hear them. We here in the Uk have a similar state of affairs, but I'd rather we looked after people who are less fortunate than cast them aside as rubbish, to stave or die of Ill health care...

Typical liberal, you like to think that we want to see people starving in the streets. There will always be exceptions to the rule, and some sort of government aid will always be needed in extreme cases, but most cases are not at that level. Did you ever think that someone starving in the street just might be motivated enough to get a job if there was no welfare? Having such a big safety net does not motivate people to work. It's like my (slightly left of center) friend who was on unemployment and didn't start looking for a job until the benefits were nearly up. Exact same thing. Why can't people take care of themselves? Why must the government do it? A better you should be asking, why is it OK for the lazy to take advantage of the hard working? And why is it OK for liberals to exploit that for votes?

know1

If you don't like it, don't buy gas.

As far as the tax "subsidy", I feel that anytime money is kept away from our government, the better off we are. If they cancel that "subsidy", would they lower taxes for everyone else? I'm sure we all know the answer to that.

fox_mulderX

i like money! give me welfare!

on nom nom nom nom

Go Beavers

MG79478 wrote:

So I’m back from a business trip. I didn't expect you to actually address anything I posted, and at least you liberals are consistent! I like your style of debating… First off you don’t address almost anything the other side brings up. When you do address something, I like how you instantly invalidate everything you don’t like, and validate what you do like, solely based on your biased opinion.

Go Beavers wrote:

You have an interesting style, MG.

Most of you post is completely incoherent, and I'm not going to address it, with the exception of the following “low hanging fruit”.

pdalowsky wrote:

Any proposals on how to deal with the welfare issue? Would love to hear them. We here in the Uk have a similar state of affairs, but I'd rather we looked after people who are less fortunate than cast them aside as rubbish, to stave or die of Ill health care...

Typical liberal, you like to think that we want to see people starving in the streets. There will always be exceptions to the rule, and some sort of government aid will always be needed in extreme cases, but most cases are not at that level. Did you ever think that someone starving in the street just might be motivated enough to get a job if there was no welfare? Having such a big safety net does not motivate people to work. It's like my (slightly left of center) friend who was on unemployment and didn't start looking for a job until the benefits were nearly up. Exact same thing. Why can't people take care of themselves? Why must the government do it? A better you should be asking, why is it OK for the lazy to take advantage of the hard working? And why is it OK for liberals to exploit that for votes?

I'm sorry that most of my post was incoherent to you. Maybe you could clarify where I lost you. I've addressed everything you've posted and also asked for you to clarify your terms, such as what is included when you say government handouts. You didn't do that. You claimed there is a crisis, and posted two links to support that statement. One link was one persons opinion (meaningless to your argument), the second present invalid data because the measurement device is flawed, as well as how they got their numbers. You didn't respond to either of these points, either. You claimed that creative accounting is the reason for fewer people on welfare, i.e. that they're going on different programs. Here, you are just wrong.

You didn't read my statement about religion and presidential candidates correctly. I said if a candidate is ambiguous about their religion, they wont get elected. You took this to mean if Americans are unclear about a candidates religion he can get elected, and then use Obama as an example. Obama has never been ambiguous about his religion. He has said all along he is a Christian. My statement would apply to a candidate saying something like: "I grew up Catholic, then was a Buddhist in college, now I'm not sure", or someone who said they were atheist. Neither of those two would get elected.

My main point is that you think there is a crisis. I've asked you to support that stance, and you haven't.

MG79478

Go Beavers wrote:

I'm sorry that most of my post was incoherent to you.

That quite obviously wasn't aimed at you. And you want me to take you seriously?

Go Beavers wrote:

I've addressed everything you've posted

Uh... no you didn't.

Go Beavers wrote:

You didn't respond to either of these points, either.

I did, you just didn't like the response.

Go Beavers wrote:

You didn't read my statement about religion and presidential candidates correctly.

Still trying to back your way out of that one? Regardless… It's insane that you think that religion even matters when it comes to being president. Hell, people were just duped in to electing a religiously ambiguous, radical community organizer with no experience, terrorist friends, and a questionable past. That alone is a huge warning sign of a crisis, a point you continually ignore. Not to mention the millions dependent on the government. How can you actually think that government dependence is OK and at a decent level and/or decreasing? That’s pure insanity on your part! Since you think things are so rosy in this country, where is your proof that government dependence is decreasing? (I don’t want to see any flawed welfare statistics again)

My point is backed up by reality and by numbers… yours by opinion and cherry picked statistics. I’ve linked some, you can google the rest. And don’t throw out good sources like the Heritage Foundation strictly because it doesn’t meet you agenda. At this point, you’re arguing the world is flat just to be stubborn, when all evidence is to the contrary. Give it up man.

cajunkiwi

MG79478 wrote:

Still trying to back your way out of that one? Regardless… It's insane that you think that religion even matters when it comes to being president. Hell, people were just duped in to electing a religiously ambiguous, radical community organizer with no experience, terrorist friends, and a questionable past. That alone is a huge warning sign of a crisis, a point you continually ignore. Not to mention the millions dependent on the government. How can you actually think that government dependence is OK and at a decent level and/or decreasing? That’s pure insanity on your part! Since you think things are so rosy in this country, where is your proof that government dependence is decreasing? (I don’t want to see any flawed welfare statistics again)

My point is backed up by reality and by numbers… yours by opinion and cherry picked statistics. I’ve linked some, you can google the rest. And don’t throw out good sources like the Heritage Foundation strictly because it doesn’t meet you agenda. At this point, you’re arguing the world is flat just to be stubborn, when all evidence is to the contrary. Give it up man.

It still amazes me that people actually believe this crap. Obama has never wavered from his assertion that he's a Christian, and yet people still think he's "religiously ambiguous."

Also, if religion doesn't matter when running for president (which it absolutelypositivelydefinitely does in America), then why should it matter that Obama is "religiously ambiguous?" (even though he isn't)

As for the other points I bolded...

Do you support Sarah Palin, who was unable to finish one single term as governor?
Do you support Peter King, who has publicly supported terrorists in Northern Ireland?
Do you support Newt Gingrich, whose commitment to family values has led him to have a couple of familys over the years?

And what does any of this have to do with the original post anyway?

cajunkiwi

Black73 wrote:

You know what you call a person who speaks three languages? Trilingual. You know what you call a person who speaks two languages? Bilingual. You know what you call a person who speaks one language? American.

My second-favorite American joke, right after:

What do American beer and sex in a canoe have in common?
They're both fucking close to water.

(thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week).

And if anyone wants to call me racist for making jokes about Americans... don't worry, I know PLENTY of jokes about New Zealanders too

cajunkiwi

MG79478 wrote:

McNairn wrote:

From one Canadian's perspective:
Republicans in the US = religious pandering for votes, not good fiscal management.
Also the right does not spend any less money - they just spend it on different things like war instead of schools and social programs.
You could argue spending money you dont have is wrong regardless but if it is a choice between Obama and Bush / Cheney / McCain / Palin / Trump, you should count yourselves lucky to have Obama.

In Canada we have three basic parties- Conservative (Republican), Liberal (Democrat), and left "socialist" (who have never really been in power)- but there is virtually no pandering by anyone to organized religion - which seems normal and right for us. In Canada a leader could actually say they dont go to church or are an athiest and still get elected - it would not be an issue. They could also say they "did inhale" and still get elected.

The debate in the US seems always to be clouded by this issue so you can't just vote for one party which has good fiscal management, vs the other that doesnt.

Religion needs to be completely separated from govenment - that is step one.

just an opinion from an outsider.

No offense, I would say your opinion is pretty far from reality. That's OK though, I have no idea what goes on in Canada either.

Actually, as a foreigner who has been living in America for over a decade (so I have a frame of reference), McNairn nailed it.

Republicans in America do pander to the so-called "religious right" during an election campaign (the Democrats do too, for that matter, but it isn't on the same level). Religion IS a factor in American politics, much moreso than any 'western' country I've lived in or studied.

(and before MG can bring up the "religious ambiguity" argument again - Obama was elected (in part) because more people believed him when he said he was a Christian than didn't. It's like the birther crap - at the end of the day, it was never more than 1/3 of the country who were dumb enough to believe he was born overseas).

In New Zealand we recently had a prime minister who was a female atheist - it'll be a LONG time before America has that combination (when Bobby Jindal was running for governor of Louisiana against Kathleen Blanco in the mid 2000s, the debate in Louisiana was whether or not a woman or a black man would be better suited to lead the state).

Some people in America are very good at muddying the waters and avoiding the issues come election time. Republicans claim ad nauseum that they're the party of fiscal responsibility - except every Republican present dating back to Reagan added a substantial amount to the national debt. One of the overblown issues during Obama's presidential campaign was over him not wearing a bloody lapel pin for crying out loud. Whether or not a candidate wears a lapel pin has no bearing on how qualified he is to lead a country, but some people tried to make an issue out of it. What was the argument during the healthcare bill debate? The potential effect of "Obamacare's" Death Panels - WHICH DIDN'T EXIST!!! The religion argument is just another attempt by people to avoid having an intelligent debate. Mitt Romney's religion was debated when he was campaigning for the Republican nomination - the argument being made at the time was that Mormons won't work on a Sunday, so if he was elected he might only run the country six days a week.

Anyone who thinks religion isn't a part of American politics is clearly unaware of the anti-gay marriage slogan "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

fox_mulderX

you know who i want as the next president?
an openly gay black female atheist.

the bible belt would go apeshit.

Go Beavers

MG79478 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I'm sorry that most of my post was incoherent to you.

That quite obviously wasn't aimed at you. And you want me to take you seriously?

Go Beavers wrote:

I've addressed everything you've posted

Uh... no you didn't.

Go Beavers wrote:

You didn't respond to either of these points, either.

I did, you just didn't like the response.

Go Beavers wrote:

You didn't read my statement about religion and presidential candidates correctly.

Still trying to back your way out of that one? Regardless… It's insane that you think that religion even matters when it comes to being president. Hell, people were just duped in to electing a religiously ambiguous, radical community organizer with no experience, terrorist friends, and a questionable past. That alone is a huge warning sign of a crisis, a point you continually ignore. Not to mention the millions dependent on the government. How can you actually think that government dependence is OK and at a decent level and/or decreasing? That’s pure insanity on your part! Since you think things are so rosy in this country, where is your proof that government dependence is decreasing? (I don’t want to see any flawed welfare statistics again)

My point is backed up by reality and by numbers… yours by opinion and cherry picked statistics. I’ve linked some, you can google the rest. And don’t throw out good sources like the Heritage Foundation strictly because it doesn’t meet you agenda. At this point, you’re arguing the world is flat just to be stubborn, when all evidence is to the contrary. Give it up man.

What have you posted that I didn't address? I'm not sure if you're just skimming what I'm writing or confusing me with someone else. I'm not backing out of my statement regarding a candidates religion. If you look at what I wrote originally, I said if a candidate was ambiguous about their religion, they wouldn't get elected. A percentage of the population being confused doesn't mean the candidate is being unclear.

I'm not ignoring your claim about there being a cultural crisis, I'm disagreeing with it and backing up what I'm saying with actual facts. You still haven't defined your terms on what government dependence is, and then you try and bounce it back to me to do the research. You seem to really buy the numbers on the Heritage Foundation link. I'm curious to hear your interpretation of those numbers, how you think they came up with them, and how they translated those formulas into data on the graph. I'm throwing those numbers out because I know they're invalid, not because it doesn't fit my agenda. All evidence suggests there is a lower proportion of people on government assistance. You want there to be a crisis. Why carry that emotional stress when there isn't a crisis? I'm still open to being convinced there is one, though.

MG79478

Go Beavers wrote:

What have you posted that I didn't address? I'm not sure if you're just skimming what I'm writing or confusing me with someone else. I'm not backing out of my statement regarding a candidates religion. If you look at what I wrote originally, I said if a candidate was ambiguous about their religion, they wouldn't get elected. A percentage of the population being confused doesn't mean the candidate is being unclear.

I'm not ignoring your claim about there being a cultural crisis, I'm disagreeing with it and backing up what I'm saying with actual facts. You still haven't defined your terms on what government dependence is, and then you try and bounce it back to me to do the research. You seem to really buy the numbers on the Heritage Foundation link. I'm curious to hear your interpretation of those numbers, how you think they came up with them, and how they translated those formulas into data on the graph. I'm throwing those numbers out because I know they're invalid, not because it doesn't fit my agenda. All evidence suggests there is a lower proportion of people on government assistance. You want there to be a crisis. Why carry that emotional stress when there isn't a crisis? I'm still open to being convinced there is one, though.

Wow, even missed some in the very last post. You just address what you want to, and ignore what you don’t. Again, the burden to keep up with the discussion is on you, go back and read it again.

As for you “real facts”… still waiting for them. Heritage is just one link with valid information. You want to discredit them because “you know”. Yet you are oblivious to the problems of this country that you should “just know”. You’ve shown no evidence that less people are dependant on the government, just a misleading welfare statistic. Even if that stat wasn’t a cherry picked timeframe, Welfare is not the entire picture of government dependence. I don’t understand how hard this is. Why don’t you look in to who takes from the government and who gives to the government? Do a little research…it’s scary. You act like if you were to google government dependence you would see tons of website talking about how things are good and headed in a better direction. Hell, google how many American don’t pay federal income tax… it’s nearly half! I guess that is not a problem? Look in to who pays the most in to the government and who takes the most from the government, it’s downright depressing.

You also ignore the anecdotal evidence, like the ER story with an actual Doctor’s name attached to it. That shit happens all the time. It happens on this board all the damn time. People buy what the want, and rely on the government to help them buy what they need. People have a flat screen TVs, cell phone, cable TV, blu ray player, and get food stamps.

Go Beavers

MG79478 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

What have you posted that I didn't address? I'm not sure if you're just skimming what I'm writing or confusing me with someone else. I'm not backing out of my statement regarding a candidates religion. If you look at what I wrote originally, I said if a candidate was ambiguous about their religion, they wouldn't get elected. A percentage of the population being confused doesn't mean the candidate is being unclear.

I'm not ignoring your claim about there being a cultural crisis, I'm disagreeing with it and backing up what I'm saying with actual facts. You still haven't defined your terms on what government dependence is, and then you try and bounce it back to me to do the research. You seem to really buy the numbers on the Heritage Foundation link. I'm curious to hear your interpretation of those numbers, how you think they came up with them, and how they translated those formulas into data on the graph. I'm throwing those numbers out because I know they're invalid, not because it doesn't fit my agenda. All evidence suggests there is a lower proportion of people on government assistance. You want there to be a crisis. Why carry that emotional stress when there isn't a crisis? I'm still open to being convinced there is one, though.

Wow, even missed some in the very last post. You just address what you want to, and ignore what you don’t. Again, the burden to keep up with the discussion is on you, go back and read it again.

As for you “real facts”… still waiting for them. Heritage is just one link with valid information. You want to discredit them because “you know”. Yet you are oblivious to the problems of this country that you should “just know”. You’ve shown no evidence that less people are dependant on the government, just a misleading welfare statistic. Even if that stat wasn’t a cherry picked timeframe, Welfare is not the entire picture of government dependence. I don’t understand how hard this is. Why don’t you look in to who takes from the government and who gives to the government? Do a little research…it’s scary. You act like if you were to google government dependence you would see tons of website talking about how things are good and headed in a better direction. Hell, google how many American don’t pay federal income tax… it’s nearly half! I guess that is not a problem? Look in to who pays the most in to the government and who takes the most from the government, it’s downright depressing.

You also ignore the anecdotal evidence, like the ER story with an actual Doctor’s name attached to it. That shit happens all the time. It happens on this board all the damn time. People buy what the want, and rely on the government to help them buy what they need. People have a flat screen TVs, cell phone, cable TV, blu ray player, and get food stamps.

Another interesting tactic where you make claims in argument, don't respond to challenges on that claim, and then call on me to do the research to back claims you made. I'm not ignoring any of the points your making. The Heritage link is not valid info, and if you think it is, then your ability to digest data is limited at best. I did a little research and put government dependence in the Yahoos. I think 4 or 5 on the first page reference the invalid Heritage article. Others are opinion pieces/theories about welfare. At least in those articles they reference a definition of government dependence, which you do not. Now you are talking about federal taxes. The people who pay the most in federal taxes are the ones making the most. They are paying more in more recent years because their pre-tax income has risen. Are you saying your depressed because people who make less money should be paying more in federal taxes? Are you proposing raising taxes on low income and middle class people?

I didn't ignore the article on the doctor. I think I responded to it twice. It's meaningless in your argument. There has been at least a couple threads about welfare recipients on the board recently which I have participated in and you can input your thoughts there. Lets stay on task here and not turn it to welfare abuse/fraud.

JonnyPistachio

MG79478 wrote:

Ok, so you say Obama wasn’t just glamorized by TV, and was elected for some other reason? Please enlighten me… Was it his experience as a politician? Experience as an executive? Was it his ability to deliver a speech without a teleprompter? Was it is well documented personal history? Was it all of his non-radical associations? What exactly got him elected? Hope and change… hollow promises based on a false premise that things were actually bad. How exactly is he a vast improvement over his predecessor? Things have gone from bad to worse since he took over. I guess the rest of the world is happy that he is dragging America down to their level.

Palin.

MG79478 wrote:

This has turned in to a typical debate on this board. Let’s face it; there are more liberals on this board than conservatives (cue sheep sound affect). It’s great that you feel the need to gang up on and attack those of us who don’t live in your fantasy world, I’m sure that validates you. As for being “condescending”, that is just more diversion from the debate at hand. It doesn’t help your case when you need simple things explained slowly to you, and if that comes off as condescending, then so be it. That is just a function of the other person’s intelligence and is outside of my control.

but its very much in your control. You are obviously a pretty smart guy, and you guys are having a good debate, but you come across very condescendingly.

fox_mulderX

MG79478 wrote:

I guess the rest of the world is happy that he is dragging America down to their level.

i was going to stay out of this, but this kind of annoyed me. what countries are you talking about when you refer to "the rest of the world"? are you implying that the united states is better than every other country? what about "...dragging america down to their level"? that sounds pretty condescending. i'm actually impressed you're able to read the posts on this thread because from what you wrote, it seems like your nose is too high in the air.

MG79478

Go Beavers wrote:

Another interesting tactic where you make claims in argument, don't respond to challenges on that claim, and then call on me to do the research to back claims you made. I'm not ignoring any of the points your making. The Heritage link is not valid info, and if you think it is, then your ability to digest data is limited at best. I did a little research and put government dependence in the Yahoos. I think 4 or 5 on the first page reference the invalid Heritage article. Others are opinion pieces/theories about welfare. At least in those articles they reference a definition of government dependence, which you do not. Now you are talking about federal taxes. The people who pay the most in federal taxes are the ones making the most. They are paying more in more recent years because their pre-tax income has risen. Are you saying your depressed because people who make less money should be paying more in federal taxes? Are you proposing raising taxes on low income and middle class people?

I didn't ignore the article on the doctor. I think I responded to it twice. It's meaningless in your argument. There has been at least a couple threads about welfare recipients on the board recently which I have participated in and you can input your thoughts there. Lets stay on task here and not turn it to welfare abuse/fraud.

It’s interesting that “your” just arguing about arguing, and ignore most of the other stuff posted. It’s really comical. Still waiting to hear why the heritage data isn’t any good, other than your opinion. Please enlighten me on your qualifications to digest data. I’m a six sigma black belt with a master’s degree in engineering. I think I know how to handle data. I don’t invalidate it based on my feelings like you. Welfare abuse and fraud is on task, stop trying to deviate. How is anything related to welfare NOT relevant to a discussion on government dependence?

I propose that everyone pay the same percentage in taxes. Someone should only pay more if they make more because the percentage is of a bigger salary. I also think people should have to pay back government assistance they have received. If that means raising taxes on low income and middle class people, than it’s time they pull their weight.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Palin.

And what is wrong with Palin? Specifically and how is it worse than Obama’s flaws?

JonnyPistachio wrote:

but its very much in your control. You are obviously a pretty smart guy, and you guys are having a good debate, but you come across very condescendingly.

I don't think I can help it. I think it would be more insulting to baby someone, and purposefully try not to be condescending. It’s another part of our growing culture crisis. Every kid gets a trophy, we don’t keep score, etc. People are babied too much these days. People need to learn early that there will always be someone better than you, and you are not always going to win. It’s all politics of the left, that try to obtain equal outcome for everyone.

fox_mulderX wrote:

i was going to stay out of this, but this kind of annoyed me. what countries are you talking about when you refer to "the rest of the world"? are you implying that the united states is better than every other country? what about "...dragging america down to their level"? that sounds pretty condescending. i'm actually impressed you're able to read the posts on this thread because from what you wrote, it seems like your nose is too high in the air.

So America is not the greatest country on earth? Excuse me for loving my country and being patriotic. I did not imply it, I specifically expressed it. Granted years of liberal entitlements, along with Barry and company are dragging us down fast.

BTW, “America” is capitalized; of course you don’t really use any capital letters in your post, but yeah… I can’t read. Granted no one uses 100% perfect spelling and grammar on a message board, but if you are going to insult someone’s intelligence, and actually want anyone to take you seriously, you might want to at least give it a shot… or maybe just stay out of it

JonnyPistachio

MG79478 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Palin.

And what is wrong with Palin? Specifically and how is it worse than Obama’s flaws?

JonnyPistachio wrote:

but its very much in your control. You are obviously a pretty smart guy, and you guys are having a good debate, but you come across very condescendingly.

I don't think I can help it. I think it would be more insulting to baby someone, and purposefully try not to be condescending. It’s another part of our growing culture crisis. Every kid gets a trophy, we don’t keep score, etc. People are babied too much these days. People need to learn early that there will always be someone better than you, and you are not always going to win. It’s all politics of the left, that try to obtain equal outcome for everyone.

You asked why Obama was elected other than his TV personality. I was saying that I think a considerable factor in Obama getting elected was that Palin showed up on the ticket with McCain. I think Obama got a lot of defensive votes to keep the ridiculous Palin out of office.

And you can help it with the condescending approach. its not about "babying" someone, its your overall tone throughout and comments like this: "I guess the rest of the world is happy that he is dragging America down to their level."

Honestly, you make some good points, but your overall condescending approach has made me stay out of it for the most part because it makes me take you a lot less seriously.

Also stuff like this shows where you're coming from: "People buy what the want, and rely on the government to help them buy what they need. People have a flat screen TVs, cell phone, cable TV, blu ray player, and get food stamps."

You are aware that this is not the average person who receives govt assistance, right?

fox_mulderX

MG79478 wrote:

So America is not the greatest country on earth? Excuse me for loving my country and being patriotic. I did not imply it, I specifically expressed it. Granted years of liberal entitlements, along with Barry and company are dragging us down fast.

BTW, “America” is capitalized; of course you don’t really use any capital letters in your post, but yeah… I can’t read. Granted no one uses 100% perfect spelling and grammar on a message board, but if you are going to insult someone’s intelligence, and actually want anyone to take you seriously, you might want to at least give it a shot… or maybe just stay out of it

haha calling out someone for not using capital letters. that's awesome.

Go Beavers

MG79478 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Another interesting tactic where you make claims in argument, don't respond to challenges on that claim, and then call on me to do the research to back claims you made. I'm not ignoring any of the points your making. The Heritage link is not valid info, and if you think it is, then your ability to digest data is limited at best. I did a little research and put government dependence in the Yahoos. I think 4 or 5 on the first page reference the invalid Heritage article. Others are opinion pieces/theories about welfare. At least in those articles they reference a definition of government dependence, which you do not. Now you are talking about federal taxes. The people who pay the most in federal taxes are the ones making the most. They are paying more in more recent years because their pre-tax income has risen. Are you saying your depressed because people who make less money should be paying more in federal taxes? Are you proposing raising taxes on low income and middle class people?

I didn't ignore the article on the doctor. I think I responded to it twice. It's meaningless in your argument. There has been at least a couple threads about welfare recipients on the board recently which I have participated in and you can input your thoughts there. Lets stay on task here and not turn it to welfare abuse/fraud.

It’s interesting that “your” just arguing about arguing, and ignore most of the other stuff posted. It’s really comical. Still waiting to hear why the heritage data isn’t any good, other than your opinion. Please enlighten me on your qualifications to digest data. I’m a six sigma black belt with a master’s degree in engineering. I think I know how to handle data. I don’t invalidate it based on my feelings like you. Welfare abuse and fraud is on task, stop trying to deviate. How is anything related to welfare NOT relevant to a discussion on government dependence?

I propose that everyone pay the same percentage in taxes. Someone should only pay more if they make more because the percentage is of a bigger salary. I also think people should have to pay back government assistance they have received. If that means raising taxes on low income and middle class people, than it’s time they pull their weight.

Again, I'm not ignoring anything you've posted, and if you look, you've hardly even asked any direct questions. Now your flipping it back to me and refusing to back up your own links to "data" that supposedly proves your point, instead, wanting me to discount it. Okay, I'll play along. First of all, if the Heritage foundation wants credibility, they should post their raw data, and they don't. I'm surprised if you have an engineering background with a six sigma black belt, and yet you accept a report without the raw data and how they used that data to get to their conclusion. They say they get their index by multiplying the raw data by it's "weight". They don't explain how they got their weights. This sentence is rather funny: "Indices in general are intended to provide insight into phenomena that are so detailed or complicated that simplification is required for obtaining anything other than a rudimentary understanding." Oh yes, it's just so complicated that you aren't able to break down your process of how you got your numbers. It's just so over our heads that we'll accept what you say.

They could just list money amounts that goes to each program, adjusted for inflation, and look at those numbers over time. They also source themselves at the bottom of each graph. E.g. "heritage foundation calculations sourced through the Index of Dependence on Government". Seriously? You should be able to see through this, MG. This is no way me making a conclusion based on emotions. I'm looking at the Heritage foundation report rather logically as well as being aware of their own bias, which is what you should do when reviewing others research.

If everyone pays the same percentage of tax, what percentage would you suggest? How much revenue would that bring in?

MG79478

JonnyPistachio wrote:

You asked why Obama was elected other than his TV personality. I was saying that I think a considerable factor in Obama getting elected was that Palin showed up on the ticket with McCain. I think Obama got a lot of defensive votes to keep the ridiculous Palin out of office.

You are aware that this is not the average person who receives govt assistance, right?

Actually, if we can’t stop this unconstitutional health care they rammed down our throats, the majority of Americans would fall in to this category. I’ll be buying something for others who could be buying it for themselves instead of some luxury.

I don’t understand what is wrong with Palin? She had more executive experience than Obama did, and she was only running for Vice President. I would really like to understand why you think she is “ridiculous”, please explain? While no candidate is perfect, she had a lot fewer flaws than Obama. Granted, the media did their best to make her look bad, but the left always goes after those they fear the most, the hardest.

fox_mulderX wrote:

haha calling out someone for not using capital letters. that's awesome.

So was the point of this post just to avoid any substantive response?

Go Beavers wrote:

Again, I'm not ignoring anything you've posted, and if you look, you've hardly even asked any direct questions. Now your flipping it back to me and refusing to back up your own links to "data" that supposedly proves your point, instead, wanting me to discount it. Okay, I'll play along. First of all, if the Heritage foundation wants credibility, they should post their raw data, and they don't. I'm surprised if you have an engineering background with a six sigma black belt, and yet you accept a report without the raw data and how they used that data to get to their conclusion. They say they get their index by multiplying the raw data by it's "weight". They don't explain how they got their weights. This sentence is rather funny: "Indices in general are intended to provide insight into phenomena that are so detailed or complicated that simplification is required for obtaining anything other than a rudimentary understanding." Oh yes, it's just so complicated that you aren't able to break down your process of how you got your numbers. It's just so over our heads that we'll accept what you say.

They could just list money amounts that goes to each program, adjusted for inflation, and look at those numbers over time. They also source themselves at the bottom of each graph. E.g. "heritage foundation calculations sourced through the Index of Dependence on Government". Seriously? You should be able to see through this, MG. This is no way me making a conclusion based on emotions. I'm looking at the Heritage foundation report rather logically as well as being aware of their own bias, which is what you should do when reviewing others research.

If everyone pays the same percentage of tax, what percentage would you suggest? How much revenue would that bring in?

Every post is the same, ignore some parts of post, and insist you don’t. It happens with EVERY post.

You’re looking way too hard for problems with the heritage data. It’s amazing what people consider biased after watching too much mainstream media. I love that these days, trying to conserve the principles this country was founded on is “biased”. There are multiple years of heritage data out there; I can’t even find the quote you posted on the most recent page doing a “CTRL-F”. Plus, it’s not the only source of data out there. You just keep focusing on it. Rather than spending your time discrediting one source, look at all the data out there that points to too much government dependence. Open your mind! It’s like you keep asking me to prove that the world is round, and you insist it is flat without any data, but keep “trying” to pick apart anything that doesn’t jive with your view of the world.

Why is the number important for tax rate? Some number could be calculated to be fair. Ideally we would abolish the IRS, and institute either a flat tax rate, or a higher sales tax. The current tax system is so ridiculous.