The Thread of Democrats

[rainbow]

I'm not a climate denier.

You deny that you deny climate change?

How concerned are you?

Yes, I deny that I deny climate change.

I'm sufficiently concerned.

Sufficient for what?

Drive a Prius, I expect.

Sufficient for any purpose.

You squeal like a little girl when you get accused of climate denialism, then dodge questions on your actual beliefs.

[rainbow]

I simply thought 70% sounded like something no-one would work for.

It is always good to think, but it is always much better to think in conjunction with knowledge of facts. In this case the fact is that millions - and millionaires among them - did not find the top marginal personal income rate of 90% to be a disincentive to work or an incentive to flee the country. With a bit of research you would have found out that not only did they refuse to work - they also did rather well during that tax regime which held sway between 1945 and 1964. Those two decades were a period of unparalleled material wellbeing in the history of the US. Think about it.

Is the argument that the well-being after World War 2 in the US was caused in part by a 90% marginal tax rate? That's what spurs economic well-being?

No. The whole tenor of my previous two posts was that things were going rather well despite the 90% top marginal personal income tax and the 50% corporate tax rates. If you see the argument as those rates causing economic well-being you'll need to quote the relevant phrases that say so.

Expect Farty to dodge your questions, as usual.

[Forty Two]

I haven't dodged anything about my actual beliefs. I've stated them many times on this forum. And, I haven't screamed at all. The one acting like a child is you, since you're just here firing pot shots, and not even trying to discuss a topic of any kind.

"How concerned are you?" Is a stupid question. Acceptance or rejection of climate science is a scientific question. I don't have to have a certain emotional level to not be a denialist. I accept nuclear science, too. What level of concern must I have in order not to be a "denialist" about that? And, saying "very" concerned or "moderately" concerned or "pissing my pants" concerned doesn't relate at all to the the validity of the science.

What is it about climate science do you need me to say?

[Forty Two]

Creeps love a lightning rod, and their bilious cheap shots at the flavor of the month bring us this surreal story.

If she were a man, nobody would ever take cheap shots at her like that...we really should be outraged... a politician getting ridiculed, teased, mocked and chided...

https://www.businessinsider.com/naked-d ... deo-2016-8 and https://www.pjstar.com/news/20170705/fa ... ria-parade and https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-n ... it-is-free

Obviously, that image was grabbed by some reddit troll and labeled Ocasio Cortez, but her face isn't in it - it's an old image from like three years ago, and it was easily identifiable as Sidney Leathers' image. The first I've seen of this thing is with your post, so it's not as if anyone has taken it seriously.

Ocasio-Cortez is a US Representative. She's as fair game as any other politician, and she makes boneheaded gaffes, and has made herself sound stupid. Nobody cared when Sarah Palin would make stupid gaffes - she'd get lambasted on the news and Saturday Night Live. So, here is Ocasio-Cortez talking about the 3 branches of government, and announcing that you pay for 40 trillion dollars worth of spending by, "well, you just pay it - it'll save money." And, then she refers to the "three branches of Congress" and that Israel was occupying Palestine. She couldn't differentiate between socialism and democratic socialism. She said she was flipping a congressional seat "red" (lol - in a sense, given her ideology, she actually did, just not in the US political blue/red way). When asked about whether Nancy Pelosi being speaker she said "we gotta take a look at what's going on." And, when asked about the cost of her programs, she said to "take into account the cost of all the funerals of people dying without healthcare." She claimed that the department of defense got a $700 billion budget increase. Her dopey comments go on and on.

And how is she portrayed in the major media? CNN - New York Times - MSNBC - Washington Post - etc etc. - without question, she's the rising star - rousing and inspiring - so wonderful. She gets lambasted by her political opponents, yes, but she gets nothing but support from the major media.

To suggest at all that Ocasio-Cortez has been treated unfairly, however? I mean the very notion is bizarre. She's barely been scratched, especially given her idiot commentary. She's an economics minor who forgot Econ 101. She is a foreign relations major who doesn't know the first thing about the middle east. She's dim, obviously good at smiling - wide eyed exuberance - but she's about as deep as a bathtub.

[Hermit]

I simply thought 70% sounded like something no-one would work for.

It is always good to think, but it is always much better to think in conjunction with knowledge of facts. In this case the fact is that millions - and millionaires among them - did not find the top marginal personal income rate of 90% to be a disincentive to work or an incentive to flee the country. With a bit of research you would have found out that not only did they refuse to work - they also did rather well during that tax regime which held sway between 1945 and 1964. Those two decades were a period of unparalleled material wellbeing in the history of the US. Think about it.

Is the argument that the well-being after World War 2 in the US was caused in part by a 90% marginal tax rate? That's what spurs economic well-being?

No. The whole tenor of my previous two posts was that things were going rather well despite the 90% top marginal personal income tax and the 50% corporate tax rates. If you see the argument as those rates causing economic well-being you'll need to quote the relevant phrases that say so.

Expect Farty to dodge your questions, as usual.

Yup. Cleared it like the winner of the Grand National Steeplechase, as if it were not there.

Looking on the bright side we were spared a wall of words' worth of prevarications, special pleading and attempts to lead us up the garden path.

[Animavore]

[laklak]

I'll say one thing about Barry, he wears a suit well. I always looked like Cousin Clem come into town, not matter how well tailored.

[Sean Hayden]

[Cunt]

How long did Obama shut down the government for his pet project?

How often have the democrats shut down the US government vs how often the republicans have?

[Animavore]

[Cunt]

She looks like another wealthy politician. A bit thinner-skinned than most, but that's just because she's new. She'll get that leathery, thicker hide as she gets seasoned.

Soon, she'll be living behind the walls of a safe community, insisting on inclusion (for everyone else)

[Animavore]

Actor Samuel L. Jackson on Sunday emphatically endorsed Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s (D-Mich.) impassioned call to impeach President Trump.

Just hours after being sworn in as a new member of Congress on Thursday, Tlaib took a microphone at an event and told the crowd of supporters that “we’re going to go in and impeach the motherf---er,” referring to the president.

Jackson, who is known for using the phrase in a number of his films, took to Twitter on Sunday night to “wholeheartedly endorse” Tlaib’s choice of language.

@RashidaTlaib I just wanna Wholeheartedly endorse your use of & clarity of purpose when declaring your Motherfucking goal last week.Calling that Muthafukkah a Motherfucker is not an issue,calling that Muthaffuqah President Is!!!#motherfuckeristoogoodtowasteonthatcankersore

— Samuel L. Jackson (@SamuelLJackson) January 7, 2019

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/i ... V5TlzWZpEg

[L'Emmerdeur]

Creeps love a lightning rod, and their bilious cheap shots at the flavor of the month bring us this surreal story.

If she were a man <snipped blithering>

My post highlighted a colorful and amusing story about the right wing side-show attached to the media circus around Ocasio-Cortez. She chose to enter the political game; she'll take her lumps like any other politician, and your long-winded self justification is irrelevant. Many American politicians say ill-informed and ridiculous things but predictably, you've chosen Ocasio-Cortez as a particular focus of your spluttering scorn.

[Cunt]

Why does 'thehill.com' claim to support her words, then chop a few out? (they first wrote 'motherf---er')

I mean, Sam doesn't mind swearing, but what's with the dashes? Do they think they are protecting modesty by not using vulgar letters?

[Animavore]

This gobshite again -