Is this a hate crime? Part 2

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
PtldPlatypus said:
Well, we saw how well "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" worked. I believe in charity, but not entitlement.
Click to expand...

Charity doesn't fix the problem of hunger in this country when we literally THROW AWAY 51% of our food instead of giving it to the hungry and homeless.
 
dviss1 said:
Charity doesn't fix the problem of hunger in this country when we literally THROW AWAY 51% of our food instead of giving it to the hungry and homeless.
Click to expand...

No doubt. But in order to provide the would-be-rights of food/water/clothing/shelter/healthcare to the poor, you have to violate the property rights of the wealthy by taking from them to give to others. I agree that those with much should be willing to provide for those with little, but it is un-American to force them to do so.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
No doubt. But in order to provide the would-be-rights of food/water/clothing/shelter/healthcare to the poor, you have to violate the property rights of the wealthy by taking from them to give to others. I agree that those with much should be willing to provide for those with little, but it is un-American to force them to do so.
Click to expand...

See I don't believe that. Taxes are progressive. Cue @Denny Crane

The top marginal tax rate used to be well over 80%. It was 79% before Reagan tripled our debt and plunged us into recession with his huge tax break on millionaires. Rich people who don't care if they live in a country full of poor people disgust me.
 
Also, raise my taxes. I will gladly have them raised so I can save money on basic needs.

Edit: the basic needs of everyone.
 
dviss1 said:
See I don't believe that. Taxes are progressive. Cue @Denny Crane

The top marginal tax rate used to be well over 80%. It was 79% before Reagan tripled our debt and plunged us into recession with his huge tax break on millionaires. Rich people who don't care if they live in a country full of poor people disgust me.
Click to expand...
Holy shit dude... I'm calling total bullshit on this
 
dviss1 said:
On what? You're saying Reagan didn't triple our national debt?
Click to expand...
No, I am talking about how you use that argument when your darling president trumped reagan's spending and say, "Hey it's okay because he's a democrat!"
 
magnifier661 said:
No, I am talking about how you use that argument when your darling president trumped reagan's spending and say, "Hey it's okay because he's a democrat!"
Click to expand...

What the hell are you conflating right now? I never even brought up Obama. What do you have? Obama Tourettes?
 
GDP to debt increase
Reagan's Debt increase 21%. Obama's increase 44%.
 
dviss1 said:
What the hell are you conflating right now? I never even brought up Obama. What do you have? Obama Tourettes?
Click to expand...
What you did was use an argument that you tried defending when it reflected your darling president in other threads. Double standard much?
 
magnifier661 said:
What you did was use an argument that you tried defending when it reflected your darling president in other threads. Double standard much?
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges bro. Was my statement true or not? Did Reagan triple our national debt or not? That's all I was saying.
Not sure how that's a double standard.
 
dviss1 said:
Apples to oranges bro. Was my statement true or not? Did Reagan triple our national debt or not? That's all I was saying.
Not sure how that's a double standard.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely true... But the rub, and what I call bullshit, is that you used this as some negative remark regarding Reagan. Will you admit Obama fucked up by doubling the GDP debt spending of Reagan then?
 
mags, you can't counter punch every period in recent history with Obama....after awhile it loses all credibility. He's made blunders as have all presidents but the playing field is not the same as it used to be.
 
riverman said:
mags, you can't counter punch every period in recent history with Obama....after awhile it loses all credibility. He's made blunders as have all presidents but the playing field is not the same as it used to be.
Click to expand...
Now we are getting somewhere! An actual liberal that admitted one of their own did a blunder! SUCCESS!
 
magnifier661 said:
Now we are getting somewhere! An actual liberal that admitted one of their own did a blunder! SUCCESS!
Click to expand...
stop calling me names...I'm a taoist agnostic american, my biggest war is with rampant bipartisanship and lack of cooperation between congress and the oval office..when congress...whichever congress is in power does everything it can to ensure policy failures so they have ammo for the next election..it sickens me. I'm not happy with our government and it's a collective disappointment.
 
magnifier661 said:
Now we are getting somewhere! An actual liberal that admitted one of their own did a blunder! SUCCESS!
Click to expand...
Getting somewhere requires solutions or at least some semblance of process instead of whining about problems that just go on like a broken record. All americans are one of my own, why aren't they yours as well?
 
riverman said:
stop calling me names...I'm a taoist agnostic american, my biggest war is with rampant bipartisanship and lack of cooperation between congress and the oval office..when congress...whichever congress is in power does everything it can to ensure policy failures so they have ammo for the next election..it sickens me. I'm not happy with our government and it's a collective disappointment.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the lack of cooperation between parties to get things done, but this isn't a one-way street. Obama spent his first two years in office, when his party controlled both houses, telling the Republicans that elections have consequences and kicking them in the balls repeatedly over health care and a myriad of other policy issues. Curiously, when the midterm elections cost him the House, he no longer was a believer in elections having consequences. When the most recent elections cost the Dems the Senate, he became even less a supporter of that concept. I guess it's a matter of which elections.
 
e_blazer said:
I'm with you on the lack of cooperation between parties to get things done, but this isn't a one-way street. Obama spent his first two years in office, when his party controlled both houses, telling the Republicans that elections have consequences and kicking them in the balls repeatedly over health care and a myriad of other policy issues. Curiously, when the midterm elections cost him the House, he no longer was a believer in elections having consequences. When the most recent elections cost the Dems the Senate, he became even less a supporter of that concept. I guess it's a matter of which elections.
Click to expand...
Very good post. Two term presidents always seem to get burned out in the middle of the second term. I tend to like term limits for govt officials and even Supreme court judges. I kicked around the idea of having a one term limit of 5 years for any president where year 4 and 5 would be a public option..not a guarantee.
 
riverman said:
Very good post. Two term presidents always seem to get burned out in the middle of the second term. I tend to like term limits for govt officials and even Supreme court judges. I kicked around the idea of having a one term limit of 5 years for any president where year 4 and 5 would be a public option..not a guarantee.
Click to expand...
IMO, the biggest problem with two-term presidents is the inherent "lame-duck" nature of that second term. What I think would be interesting would be a progressive vote requirement, increasing after every term. After your first term, if you want to win the presidency for a second term, you need 60% of the vote. To stay in for a third term, you need 70%, and so on. In fact, something similar to that could work for all levels of elected office--it would encourage politicians to act in a more broad general interest, allow highly popular/effective officials to remain in office longer, and make it much more difficult for less effective incumbents to retain their positions.
 
riverman said:
how many wars was Reagan involved in overseas again?
Click to expand...

You don't remember when Reagan sold missiles to Iran? You don't remember when Reagan bombed the small country of Grenada? I certainly do...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MarAzul
Is this a race hate crime in progress?
Replies
12
Views
794
DaLincolnJones
DaLincolnJones
MIXUM
Death Penalty
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
maxiep
maxiep
SlyPokerDog
McGruff The Crime Dog Actor Sentenced To 16 Years For Pot, Grenade Launcher
Replies
8
Views
345
ehizzy3
ehizzy3
crandc
Politics Should a woman have to choose between death and prison?
Replies
1
Views
279
barfo
barfo
Chris Craig
  • Poll Poll
OT OJ Simpson Parole
Replies
28
Views
1K
Cippy91
Cippy91

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top