Political posterizing.

[Warren Dew]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]

No... I see fear. A lot of it.

Again, that's projection. It's because of all the fear preached by the Democrats. For decades it's the same thing over and over again. Reagan was going to blow up the world. Fear. W. Bush - Halliburtan, Carlysle Group, Oh, My! They are controlling all the Diebold Machines and rigging ALL the elections! They'll take all your rights away! WAR AGAINST WOMEN!! They're waging WAR against you all!!! Be afraid, be very afraid!!!! Best vote for the Democrats, or they'll take everything away from you!!! They want to make you poor!!! Fear Fear Fear!!!

And, then they have the nerve to suggest other people are afraid. It's because you're quaking in your boots that you think the Republicans are MAKING you quake in your boots. Turns out, it's you're doing it to yourselves.

It's one thing to make a point that his policies are counterproductive. It's something else to say that he's DELIBERATELY TRYING to make the country worse as a matter of policy! And that's exactly what you were saying before. You can't say things like that and then just assume I'm projecting my own feelings when I describe how I interpret them.

Nope. I think he is deliberately trying to make things better, which is the credit Democrat asshats won't give to a single Republican, ever. However, what he thinks is "better" is not what I think is "better." I don't think he's evil. i think he thinks Americans and western Europeans have unfairly benefited from past bad acts, and are having a better time of it now than the rest of the world, which is unfair. And, that it would be "better" if it was more fair. He also thinks that we are on an "unsustainable" course, which is why he wants fuel and energy prices higher and such. To put some brakes on things. To slow things down.

He certainly wants safety nets, so I would never claim he wants people hungry or cold or sick. But, I do think he is not concerned with prosperity as long as the large bulk of people have a minimum of food, clothing and shelter. Opportunity. Liberty. All those things don't mean much to him, and what's more, you deny that about this guy, but he WROTE ABOUT IT HIMSELF IN HIS BOOKS. Read them. You'll learn something about his philosophy.

It's a bizarre stretch to say that an expectation of higher gas and electricity prices means his ultimate goal is to reduce American prosperity and bring us down to the rest of the world. That's a logical fallacy, to put it mildly.

No, it isn't. He says that UNDER HIS PLAN "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket." It's not incidental. He knows that what he's doing will make the costs skyrocket, but he wants to do it anyway -- because it's part of the method to get people to stop using as much electricity (which will, for the common person, mean less driving, less air conditioning, and less heat and hot water, because that is what the common person uses energy for).

I don't mind trotting out the old fear canard at all. Dare I say it's a scientific fact that conservatives are more attuned and responsive to fear than liberals? Well, they are. Don't make me trot out the studies that have been done on this.

We've been through the article. It doesn't say that Republicans are afraid, or more fearful.

BTW - There are very few people I genuinely hate. But I have mountains of disrespect for many conservatives.

And, I too. I'm not conservative overall, and I oppose guys like Akin, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, etc. I am conservative economically, in the sense of a Von Mises and Milton Friedman. However, that is not George W. Bush economics (neocon) and it is certainly not Democrat economics. I think Romney is o.k., and I like Paul Ryan because he is a serious guy, with brains. He and Romney are practical, pragmatic, and have business and management sense. I wouldn't vote for Perry, Palin or Bachman or that wing of the GOP. I would have voted for Huntsman or Gingerich, probably. Among Democrats, I o.k. with Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and Ben Nelson.

Naturally, of course, I'm accused of being "conservative" because I criticize Obama and Biden. It doesn't matter that I have many times before said that I can support some Democrats, and that I have opposed some of the most conservative people in the GOP. It doesn't matter what my views are, folks will pigeonhole me into the "conservative" wing, in an attempt to smear. My ability to support issues, regardless of which "team" advances the position I agree with, must be because I am a "conservative" and "in fear" of everything, right?

[Ian]

You fling around so much crap you don't even know where you stand. What you wrote about Obama in that post is the complete opposite from what you wrote in the post that prompted my reply in the first place.

I call things as I see them. You're free to say I'm just projecting my own emotions, but when you make statements as ludicrous as saying that the President is *deliberately* trying to ruin American prosperity, I get to ridicule it for what it is. One cannot possibly say something like that without being either stupid or paranoid (i.e. fearful). Those are the only two possible options for statements like that. And I don't think you're stupid.

However, I do give you credit for backtracking and now saying that he's trying to make things better but has the wrong ideas. But, that is NOT what you wrote earlier. If the post I quoted had just been a gripe about how Obama has good intentions but bad policies, I would've completely ignored it.

By the way - globally, we ARE on an unsustainable course, especially energy-wise. Are you honestly suggesting otherwise? I would only suggest otherwise if miracle solutions like solar energy take off. But that's something I'm keeping my fingers crossed about.

And please do get off electricity as your little "a-HA!" subject. So what if Obama said that? That's like one of the blind men feeling the elephant's ass and deciding he can explain the whole animal based on that. Obama also increased Pell Grants for college students - is that another bit of policy which indicates that his true goal is to bring down American prosperity and level us with the rest of the world?

[Coito ergo sum]

You fling around so much crap you don't even know where you stand. What you wrote about Obama in that post is the complete opposite from what you wrote in the post that prompted my reply in the first place.

It isn't. Or, at least that is what I intended it to be. I think you read me wrong in the first instance. But, let's end that here. At a minimum, I've clarified, so give me the courtesy of taking my clarification at face value. That's what I meant. I've said many times I give him the credit for wanting things "better" (but, of course, what he thinks is "Better" is not what I think is "Better.").

I call things as I see them. You're free to say I'm just projecting my own emotions, but when you make statements as ludicrous as saying that the President is *deliberately* trying to ruin American prosperity, I get to ridicule it for what it is. One cannot possibly say something like that without being either stupid or paranoid (i.e. fearful). Those are the only two possible options for statements like that. And I don't think you're stupid.

If you can think of any reason to champion a plan that deliberately raises energy prices (and he came right out and said it -- quote -- you heard what he said in the video), then let me know. Why? He thinks that the country would be "better" off if prices are higher and energy costs more. Why? For exactly the reason I said -- because he thinks that we're using too much energy and he wants to roll that back. He knows that will harm the economy as a whole, but he thinks as long as we provide enough government safety nets for the people who can't afford it, then it's o.k.

What other reason is there?

And, the whole "paranoia/fear" nonsense is an allegation that is nonproductive. I offer arguments, and instead of explaining where I'm wrong, you take the shortcut of calling me "afraid." You won't take me at my word that I'm not afraid. You say I must be afraid, or stupid. It's a broken record I've heard Democrats use against their political opposition for decades. Everyone is either stupid or evil, or paranoid, or a combination. It's an easy argument to make because it requires no thought, and automatically makes your own views justified.

However, I do give you credit for backtracking and now saying that he's trying to make things better but has the wrong ideas. But, that is NOT what you wrote earlier. If the post I quoted had just been a gripe about how Obama has good intentions but bad policies, I would've completely ignored it.

If you reread it, it is what I wrote. But, perhaps I did not write it clearly enough. And, I have clarified. If you want to make the argument "you said this -- no I really meant that" then feel free.

Obama does have intentions do what he thinks is good. I don't think that what he thinks is good, though, is good. We differ, I believe, in that fundamental way.

By the way - globally, we ARE on an unsustainable course, especially energy-wise. Are you honestly suggesting otherwise? I would only suggest otherwise if miracle solutions like solar energy take off. But that's something I'm keeping my fingers crossed about.

Solar energy has no path to providing the energy we need in the world. It would have to be a literal miracle for that to be the case.

If you think we are on an unsustainable course, then how in the world could you support measures that you think would bring about an improvement in American industry, business, construction, manufacturing and such. When those things improve, our course could only become MORE "unsustainable."

And please do get off electricity as your little "a-HA!" subject. So what if Obama said that?

That's what he believes. I take him at his word.

That's like one of the blind men feeling the elephant's ass and deciding he can explain the whole animal based on that. Obama also increased Pell Grants for college students - is that another bit of policy which indicates that his true goal is to bring down American prosperity and level us with the rest of the world?

That's small potatoes, Pell Grants. Obama wants, ultimately, to nationalize the education system. That's another area where I fundamentally disagree with him. He doesn't have the political clout to do it now, but I think you'd admit that if he could, he would.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Ian]

Okay then, back to the pictures...

24899_354853638847_1923475_n.jpg (57.47 KiB) Viewed 344 times

427010_462678400433249_2005744950_n.jpg (35.92 KiB) Viewed 344 times

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Eisenhower was a Republican, and tops the chart.

[Ian]

Eisenhower was a Republican, and tops the chart.

I've mentioned elsewhere that the parties really aren't that significant over the long term. There are macroeconomic trends that affect (and ultimately engulf) them both.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Eisenhower was a Republican, and tops the chart.

I've mentioned elsewhere that the parties really aren't that significant over the long term. There are macroeconomic trends that affect (and ultimately engulf) them both.

The one thing that gives me any hope at all is that the policies of the parties only go so far before reality kicks in.

[Coito ergo sum]

523253_475068339170816_1141942500_n.jpg

O.k. - look -- the top 10% of income earners pay 70.47% of income taxes in the US (tax year 2009) How much more of the total tax burden should they pay? 82%? 90%? Foot the entire bill? 100%?

[Ian]

523253_475068339170816_1141942500_n.jpg

O.k. - look -- the top 10% of income earners pay 70.47% of income taxes in the US (tax year 2009) How much more of the total tax burden should they pay? 82%? 90%? Foot the entire bill? 100%?

Now yer talkin'.

Just kidding. I think taxes ought to go up on everybody at least a little. The deficit isn't going to be solved only by bringing back a reasonable tax rate (that's the key word by the way, rate) on the rich. Even the poor ought to pay a bit too, even if it amounts to ten bucks a year, just so they have some skin in the game.

EDIT: Besides, whatever they (and everybody else) are contributing right now isn't enough. You're looking at the wrong numbers. The top 10% are paying 70.47% towards a total that still falls way too short. There's a deficit of around $1.3T. Tax rates are about the lowest they've ever been (especially for the very rich), the rich are as rich as they've ever been, and the size of government relative to the population is relatively small compared to the past and to many other advanced countries, and yet conservatives will still claim that cutting government should take the priority over bringing taxes back up. A little of both solutions is a good idea, but I think the past has shown very clearly that we can operate quite well with higher taxes. Indeed, as a country, we've done much better than today.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

523253_475068339170816_1141942500_n.jpg

O.k. - look -- the top 10% of income earners pay 70.47% of income taxes in the US (tax year 2009) How much more of the total tax burden should they pay? 82%? 90%? Foot the entire bill? 100%?

How about they pay the same percentage a working mother pays. Then we wouldn't have a national debt. You said that they pay 70.47%, but you don't say what that means to them. If it goes up 1% will they have to live in the street?

[Ian]

523253_475068339170816_1141942500_n.jpg

O.k. - look -- the top 10% of income earners pay 70.47% of income taxes in the US (tax year 2009) How much more of the total tax burden should they pay? 82%? 90%? Foot the entire bill? 100%?

How about they pay the same percentage a working mother pays. Then we wouldn't have a national debt. You said that they pay 70.47%, but you don't say what that means to them. If it goes up 1% will they have to live in the street?

According to GOP dogma, it means they won't create as many job for the middle class. So we should keep taxes on the rich nice and low, like they have been for a decade. And we should pay no attention when they gripe about how Obama hasn't brought unemployment down far enough.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was horrified to find that the people with the most money actually have to pay in more than a Weinermobile Driver.