GOP'ish candidates

[randolph]

This might surprise some of our Liberal friends.

[transjen]

All you hear from the GOP is the rich create jobs and by cutting there taxes the rich in turn will create jobs
So W cut taxes for the rich not once but twice and those cuts are still in effect and unlike all the BS from the GOP the truth is Obama did not add or raise taxes on these so called job creating saints
So taxes on these job creaters has been cut for 12 years now so where are these jobs
All four wanna be GOP presidents are screaming make the Bush tax cuts periment and give them even more tax cuts and it will put everyone back to work
Why do people buy in to this BULLSHIT?
it hasn't worked so far so way by keeping this :coupling: policy going will all of asudden work
So far all the GOP plans to restore America is keep the the failed agenda going by
:coupling: the poor
deregalating rules for big bussiness and wallstreet
Doing away with social security and medicare
starting more wars
and make sure the top one percent never pay any taxes
just the same tired old GOP FU to the working class
been there seen it lived it done it 2001-2008, 1980-1992,1968-1976
WAKE UP AMERICA
A GOP whitehouse will make us a thrid world country
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

All you hear from the GOP is the rich create jobs and by cutting there taxes the rich in turn will create jobs
So W cut taxes for the rich not once but twice and those cuts are still in effect and unlike all the BS from the GOP the truth is Obama did not add or raise taxes on these so called job creating saints
So taxes on these job creaters has been cut for 12 years now so where are these jobs
The unemployment rate during most of W's presidency has been pretty good - around 5-6%. Since financial collapse (a consequence of lending practices not taxing), Obama has decided to keep the Bush tax cuts not so much to create jobs but because he knows if he raises taxes that will increase unemployment. But you know that already.

[smc]

The unemployment rate during most of W's presidency has been pretty good - around 5-6%. Since financial collapse (a consequence of lending practices not taxing), Obama has decided to keep the Bush tax cuts not so much to create jobs but because he knows if he raises taxes that will increase unemployment. But you know that already.

And you know that Obama decided to keep the tax cuts because it was the only way he could get the Republicans to agree to other measures that were necessary at the time.

[Enoch Root]

The unemployment rate during most of W's presidency has been pretty good - around 5-6%. Since financial collapse (a consequence of lending practices not taxing), Obama has decided to keep the Bush tax cuts not so much to create jobs but because he knows if he raises taxes that will increase unemployment. But you know that already.

Tracy Coxx: Friend of the Working Man. Fighting for Capital, the Commodification of Man and the American Way!

Can you see it ladies and gentlemen? Can you see those beautiful green pants and that brilliant white shirt emblazoned with dollar signs--a gaudy display that would make the Riddler squeal in joy?

[smc]

Tracy Coxx: Friend of the Working Man. Fighting for Capital, the Commodification of Man and the American Way!

Can you see it ladies and gentlemen? Can you see those beautiful green pants and that brilliant white shirt emblazoned with dollar signs--a gaudy display that would make the Riddler squeal in joy?

As you well know, I rarely agree with Tracy Coxx on anything political or economic. But he makes a claim in the post to which you refer, by inference, that raising taxes will increase unemployment. That is a position that can be debated and shown to be patently false. How about taking on that, Enoch Root? It would be a far greater contribution to the discussion.

[Enoch Root]

As you well know, I rarely agree with Tracy Coxx on anything political or economic. But he makes a claim in the post to which you refer, by inference, that raising taxes will increase unemployment. That is a position that can be debated and shown to be patently false. How about taking on that, Enoch Root? It would be a far greater contribution to the discussion.

Low taxes are always spoken of in terms of a "keystone." That is, they are the most important part without which the rest of the system--the "arch" in the analogy--would not work. The way in which they work is namely raising employment: the lower the taxes the higher the employment. The corollary is obvious and has already been stated: raising taxes lowers employment. Bush instituted the cuts, they survive to this day, we still have an unemployment problem. All things which Jen has stated in the past.

But, if I understand smc's post correctly, there is a better way to go about this:
Tracy, by what method do lower taxes lead to higher employment?

[ulyssesgrant50]

OK i'm sick to death of the various GOP bozos going on and on about actavist judges
Well let me fill you in on the true meaning of the term Actavist Judge an actavist judge is any judges ruling you don't like :p
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Jen - I LOVE your definition. You sum it up neatly.

[TracyCoxx]

And you know that Obama decided to keep the tax cuts because it was the only way he could get the Republicans to agree to other measures that were necessary at the time.

Are you sure about that? You might want to look up the numbers of republicans and democrats in the house at that time.

[smc]

Are you sure about that? You might want to look up the numbers of republicans and democrats in the house at that time.

I don't need to, and neither do you. You know that majority does not rule in the United States Senate, but conveniently ignore that fact to make your point.

Further, I did not post anything that could be construed as stating that this was a simple vote on the tax measure. My post specifically states: "get the Republicans to agree to other measures that were necessary at the time."

I know you saw that in my post.

[TracyCoxx]

I don't need to, and neither do you. You know that majority does not rule in the United States Senate, but conveniently ignore that fact to make your point.

Further, I did not post anything that could be construed as stating that this was a simple vote on the tax measure. My post specifically states: "get the Republicans to agree to other measures that were necessary at the time."

I know you saw that in my post.

The majority does not rule in the senate? Huh?

[TracyCoxx]

This election year is going to the dogs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEBN8wOKjMo

[smc]

This election year is going to the dogs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEBN8wOKjMo

In an electoral environment where people have claimed a legitimate place in the political arena while carrying signs of Obama made to look like Adolph Hitler, and even comparing him to Hitler, this kind of thing ... even in jest ... is absolutely disgusting and without merit.

Personally, as someone who counts 64 members of his family lost to the Nazis in death camps, I find this to be reprehensible.

I ask you, Tracy Coxx, do you repudiate all of your ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons?

[TracyCoxx]

In an electoral environment where people have claimed a legitimate place in the political arena while carrying signs of Obama made to look like Adolph Hitler, and even comparing him to Hitler, this kind of thing ... even in jest ... is absolutely disgusting and without merit.

Personally, as someone who counts 64 members of his family lost to the Nazis in death camps, I find this to be reprehensible.

I ask you, Tracy Coxx, do you repudiate all of your ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons?

Uhhh, I take it you've completely missed this meme? This in no way compares Obama to hitler. There's a bunch of these videos on youtube with the same scene where Hitler's going ballistic about something. On Youtube people change the subtitles to all kinds of funny things, like this one where he doesn't like the ending to harry potter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rytV6i6bSnA

There's another one where he finds out his car has a parking boot put on it, or that Santa isn't real or that someone blew up his death star. This is yet another one that someone made with the revelation (recent revelation if you haven't read Obama's book) that he's eaten dog before. Did you miss that too? Dog recipes are flying all over the internet now (golden fried retriever, etc) and of course the hitler meme is not immune to it either.

[smc]

Uhhh, I take it you've completely missed this meme? This in no way compares Obama to hitler. There's a bunch of these videos on youtube with the same scene where Hitler's going ballistic about something. On Youtube people change the subtitles to all kinds of funny things, like this one where he doesn't like the ending to harry potter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rytV6i6bSnA

There's another one where he finds out his car has a parking boot put on it, or that Santa isn't real or that someone blew up his death star. This is yet another one that someone made with the revelation (recent revelation if you haven't read Obama's book) that he's eaten dog before. Did you miss that too? Dog recipes are flying all over the internet now (golden fried retriever, etc) and of course the hitler meme is not immune to it either.

I missed none of it. There's nothing funny about Hitler. How about answering the question I posed.

[TracyCoxx]

I missed none of it. There's nothing funny about Hitler. How about answering the question I posed.

The joke obviously wasn't meant for you then.

[smc]

The joke obviously wasn't meant for you then.

Answer my question.

Anyone else think Hitler is funny? How about in the context of Tracy Coxx's other political posts about Obama and Obama's positions, and given the Tuse of Hitler images at public Tea Party events. Or how about the recent statement by a Catholic bishop likening Obama to Hitler and Stalin?

[tslust]

In an electoral environment where people have claimed a legitimate place in the political arena while carrying signs of Obama made to look like Adolph Hitler, and even comparing him to Hitler, this kind of thing ... even in jest ... is absolutely disgusting and without merit.

Personally, as someone who counts 64 members of his family lost to the Nazis in death camps, I find this to be reprehensible.

I ask you, Tracy Coxx, do you repudiate all of your ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons?

Do you repudiate all of the liberals who made such comparisons about Bush?

[smc]

Do you repudiate all of the liberals who made such comparisons about Bush?

Absolutely, without equivocation. Any such comparison, besides being wrong, is scurrilous and without historical merit. And please note that I do not consider myself to be a liberal, nor do I hold liberal views by any genuine definition of that term. My views are considerably to the left of any "liberal," whether the U.S. definition of the term or the more widespread definition of the term globally.

[tslust]

[COLOR="Black"]Absolutely, without equivocation. Any such comparison, besides being wrong, is scurrilous and without historical merit.[/COLOR

Thanks:kiss: enough said.

[tslust]

I don't mind people offering criticism about specific actions. What I don't llike is people who make blanket statments (basically ammounting to, he's just stupid) based on political party lines, personal opinion, or (dare I even say it) race.

[smc]

I don't mind people offering criticism about specific actions. What I don't llike is people who make blanket statments (basically ammounting to, he's just stupid) based on political party lines, personal opinion, or (dare I even say it) race.

The genesis of the ongoing dispute over the method of political discourse on this site can be traced to such blanket statements.

[TracyCoxx]

Do you repudiate all of the liberals who made such comparisons about Bush?

See this is what smc does. The video I posted makes absolutely no comparison between Obama and Hitler. But what has smc turned this into? An accusation that I did precisely that. And now others are asking smc if he would repudiate liberals who would _compare_ Bush to Hitler. The topic has now been successfully changed and I will be accused of not responding to criticisms or direct questions about my posts when in fact you are now talking about something I never did: comparing people to Hitler which has now been attributed to me.

[ila]

...Anyone else think Hitler is funny? How about in the context of Tracy Coxx's other political posts about Obama and Obama's positions, and given the Tuse of Hitler images at public Tea Party events. Or how about the recent statement by a Catholic bishop likening Obama to Hitler and Stalin?

I don't think Hitler is funny, but I do think the posted video is funny. I've seen the same video with Hitler going to Sturgis on a Honda and another when Hitler found out that Toronto had been eliminated from the playoffs. I found all of them funny as they are just spoofs. I'm pretty sure the creators of these video clips did not intend to compare Hitler or his actions to anyone else. I'm equally sure that the videos were created to give others a laugh.

smc, I'm sorry for what happened to your family. It was a crime against humanity, but I don't see the video as attenuating the circumstances of what happened to your family and to the Jewish people. Nor do I see the video as making light of Hitler's and his regime's criminal acts.

[smc]

I don't think Hitler is funny, but I do think the posted video is funny. I've seen the same video with Hitler going to Sturgis on a Honda and another when Hitler found out that Toronto had been eliminated from the playoffs. I found all of them funny as they are just spoofs. I'm pretty sure the creators of these video clips did not intend to compare Hitler or his actions to anyone else. I'm equally sure that the videos were created to give others a laugh.

smc, I'm sorry for what happened to your family. It was a crime against humanity, but I don't see the video as attenuating the circumstances of what happened to your family and to the Jewish people. Nor do I see the video as making light of Hitler's and his regime's criminal acts.

Then it belongs in a "humor" thread, and not in a political discussion thread. Given the provocative nature of certain posts throughout this site in political threads, one reasonably can wonder whether it was posted exclusively for its humor.

[smc]

See this is what smc does. The video I posted makes absolutely no comparison between Obama and Hitler. But what has smc turned this into? An accusation that I did precisely that. And now others are asking smc if he would repudiate liberals who would _compare_ Bush to Hitler. The topic has now been successfully changed and I will be accused of not responding to criticisms or direct questions about my posts when in fact you are now talking about something I never did: comparing people to Hitler which has now been attributed to me.

See this is what Tracy Coxx does. He writes that the video "makes absolutely no comparison between Obama and Hitler." But the title of the video is "Hitler Finds Out Obama Ate His Dog" (oh, my, there IS an Obama reference!).

My response to the posting was this:

In an electoral environment where people have claimed a legitimate place in the political arena while carrying signs of Obama made to look like Adolph Hitler, and even comparing him to Hitler, this kind of thing ... even in jest ... is absolutely disgusting and without merit.

Note that I did not attribute to Tracy Coxx the comparison he states I accuse him of. No, he makes that up, because he needs to accuse me of something that he thinks will make my point look illegitimate. Also, by doing so, he tries to shift the focus away from my point, which is precisely that given the political environment, and the comparisons made BY OTHERS, this kind of humor -- in my opinion -- is harmful.

[smc]

^ One more thing: if the Hitler video was just about humor, why was it posted in one of the political threads?

I think anyone with half a brain can figure out the answer.

[TracyCoxx]

See this is what Tracy Coxx does. He writes that the video "makes absolutely no comparison between Obama and Hitler." But the title of the video is "Hitler Finds Out Obama Ate His Dog" (oh, my, there IS an Obama reference!).It took you a week to find the reference to Obama in the title? Hopefully it doesn't take you another week to realize that reference does not mean comparison.

Note that I did not attribute to Tracy Coxx the comparison he states I accuse him of.Fine. Then leave me out of it and whine about jpjoiner, the person who posted the video on youtube if you're not attributing the comparison to me.

Also, by doing so, he tries to shift the focus away from my point, which is precisely that given the political environment, and the comparisons made BY OTHERS, this kind of humor -- in my opinion -- is harmful.Your point shifted focus away from the humor of the video. Have you considered that?

One more thing: if the Hitler video was just about humor, why was it posted in one of the political threads?

You've said that before and no one took it seriously. It's funny that you say it again... which is ironic if there's no humor allowed in political threads.

[TracyCoxx]

Just passing this on...
""Of course jokes are posted in the political thread.
Anything posted about the big "O" or by smc."

You don't think this has serious readers do you?:no:"

[smc]

It took you a week to find the reference to Obama in the title? Hopefully it doesn't take you another week to realize that reference does not mean comparison.

Ooh, should I go complain to the site owner or another moderator about you insulting me in a post? I've always wondered how it would feel to be Tracy Coxx, and this could be my chance to live the Tracy Coxx life vicariously, if even for a brief moment. (By the way, I saw the title when I first saw your post, but don't let that get in the way of trying to make me look stupid.)

Fine. Then leave me out of it and whine about jpjoiner, the person who posted the video on youtube if you're not attributing the comparison to me.

Once again, I didn't attribute the comparison to you. But keep making that claim. Say it enough times, and eventually -- truth be damned -- someone other than you will believe it.

Your point shifted focus away from the humor of the video. Have you considered that?

I stand by what I wrote about Hitler earlier.

You've said that before and no one took it seriously. It's funny that you say it again... which is ironic if there's no humor allowed in political threads.

I didn't write that humor wasn't allowed in the political threads. But, as is typical, you dodge the main point I did make on this particular subtopic of the argument: why did YOU choose to put it in a political thread? I don't expect you to answer, or address the issues about the comparisons made by others that make it so disgusting.

[TracyCoxx]

Once again, I didn't attribute the comparison to you. But keep making that claim. Say it enough times, and eventually -- truth be damned -- someone other than you will believe it.And once again leave me out of it and whine about jpjoiner, the person who posted the video on youtube if you're not attributing the comparison to me.

I didn't write that humor wasn't allowed in the political threads.Then you're just nitpicking again? Thanks for clarifying.

[smc]

And once again leave me out of it and whine about jpjoiner, the person who posted the video on youtube if you're not attributing the comparison to me.

I know you're not stupid, so why do you keep pretending to be?

And once again, I didn't attribute the comparison to you. You know it, I know it, and anyone with half a brain reading this knows it. As I wrote earlier, keep making that claim. Say it enough times, and eventually -- truth be damned -- someone other than you will believe it.

Then you're just nitpicking again? Thanks for clarifying.

Then you're just dodging the issue again. Thanks for clarifying.

[TracyCoxx]

And once again, I didn't attribute the comparison to you. You know it, I know it, and anyone with half a brain reading this knows it.

Fine, and I'll say again, you should make comments like the following:
In an electoral environment where people have claimed a legitimate place in the political arena while carrying signs of Obama made to look like Adolph Hitler, and even comparing him to Hitler, this kind of thing ... even in jest ... is absolutely disgusting and without merit.

to someone else. You're not attributing it to me. Ok, I believe you. I thought you raised that point because it had something to do with the video I posted, but apparently it's just some random trivia. So you have a problem with some people comparing Obama to Hitler. That is #1, irrelevant to anything mentioned before, and #2 irrelevant to me. Again, take it to someone else, I don't care who.

I didn't write that humor wasn't allowed in the political threads. But, as is typical, you dodge the main point I did make on this particular subtopic of the argument: why did YOU choose to put it in a political thread? I don't expect you to answer, or address the issues about the comparisons made by others that make it so disgusting.
Ok, so we're done with the comparison thing, and you'll take that up with someone else. I wish you luck in resolving that. I think that just leaves why I chose to put a humorous youtube video in a political thread. You've eliminated forum rule violations as your motivation for asking this, so I guess it's just a curiosity of yours.

Sure. We can do that. The issue we're now discussing is why TracyCoxx wanted to post a Hitler spoof video where it makes it look like Hitler is angry about discovering that Obama ate his dog Fluffy. Yes smc, I will do that for you. Would you prefer to split this thread into this new discussion or should we just continue along in here to discuss this issue?

[smc]

Fine, and I'll say again, you should make comments like the following:


to someone else. You're not attributing it to me. Ok, I believe you. I thought you raised that point because it had something to do with the video I posted, but apparently it's just some random trivia. So you have a problem with some people comparing Obama to Hitler. That is #1, irrelevant to anything mentioned before, and #2 irrelevant to me. Again, take it to someone else, I don't care who.


Ok, so we're done with the comparison thing, and you'll take that up with someone else. I wish you luck in resolving that. I think that just leaves why I chose to put a humorous youtube video in a political thread. You've eliminated forum rule violations as your motivation for asking this, so I guess it's just a curiosity of yours.

Sure. We can do that. The issue we're now discussing is why TracyCoxx wanted to post a Hitler spoof video where it makes it look like Hitler is angry about discovering that Obama ate his dog Fluffy. Yes smc, I will do that for you. Would you prefer to split this thread into this new discussion or should we just continue along in here to discuss this issue?

Here's what I'm going to do for you, Tracy Coxx. I'm going to concede to you that you have successfully dodged discussing the core of any of the points I made. You win. Now you can boast about your Pyrrhic victory to your friends, or your mommy, or whomever. Why Pyrrhic? Because by continually denigrating discourse, posting provocative crap and then pretending there's nothing to it, and so on, you denigrate yourself.

As I wrote somewhere else on this site, you make me want to vomit. It's not your political positions. I respect the opinions that differ from mine, when they're serious. I respect people who have them, too, if they own up to them and discuss them honestly. But you only do that if you don't get challenged. Then you pull this crap, and you make me want to vomit.

[TracyCoxx]

I merely took your odd accusations and demands to their logical conclusions.
Now you can boast about your Pyrrhic victory to your friends, or your mommy, or whomever. Why Pyrrhic? Because by continually denigrating discourse, posting provocative crap and then pretending there's nothing to it, and so on, you denigrate yourself.You're right in one sense - it is not a victory I would want to celebrate. Not because of the enormous cost of winning or the devastated state I now find myself in but because this petty argument you insisted on having could have ended up no other way. By becoming so indignant over trivial things like a headmaster demanding little Johnny share his joke with the rest of the class you put yourself in this position.

As I wrote somewhere else on this site, you make me want to vomit.
Might I suggest the addition of this for the site?
http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-9529.gif

[smc]

I merely took your odd accusations and demands to their logical conclusions.
You're right in one sense - it is not a victory I would want to celebrate. Not because of the enormous cost of winning or the devastated state I now find myself in but because this petty argument you insisted on having could have ended up no other way. By becoming so indignant over trivial things like a headmaster demanding little Johnny share his joke with the rest of the class you put yourself in this position. ...

Of course, you can call things trivial as a means of ignoring their substance. It's what cowards do when they can't really answer in an argument. Yes, I called you a coward. Go complain to the site owner.

You're a master at ignoring the substance of the points and then trying to make it look as if you're being accused, or harassed, or whatever. I salute your "skill," which I assume must work in some parts of your life since you employ it with such aplomb here.

Whoops, I threw up on your shoes.

[TracyCoxx]

Of course, you can call things trivial as a means of ignoring their substance.On the contrary I said I would go so far as split this thread or devote my time in this one to discuss your issue. In response you waved the white flag. I am still open to discuss it if you'd like. It can only get better lol.

Whoops, I threw up on your shoes.LOL well wha-d'ya know... smc made a funny. Well played.

[smc]

On the contrary I said I would go so far as split this thread or devote my time in this one to discuss your issue. In response you waved the white flag. I am still open to discuss it if you'd like. It can only get better lol.

My "issue" doesn't need to be split off from this thread; you simply need to address the substantive points, instead of continuing to post transparent bullshit like the above designed to make it look like I'm the one who is dodging.

[TracyCoxx]

The issue we're now discussing is why TracyCoxx wanted to post a Hitler spoof video where it makes it look like Hitler is angry about discovering that Obama ate his dog Fluffy. Yes smc, I will do that for you. Would you prefer to split this thread into this new discussion or should we just continue along in here to discuss this issue?

My "issue" doesn't need to be split off from this thread

Ok, attention everyone following this thread. This thread that I started was intended to be a place to discuss the GOP candidates. I posted a spoof video that had nothing to do with GOP candidates. I know that was poor form. Neither Hitler, Obama or Obama's dog eating past have anything to do with the GOP, but I thought well it's just one quick post. I figured people would look at it, laugh, or not, and go on with their lives. Yeah I know, I keep forgetting about smc. So the posted video and the following posts are now one tenth of a 6 page thread on GOP candidates. smc sees nothing wrong with continuing with his hitler spoof video interrogations in this same thread so fine. There's only one GOP candidate now anyway. At least only Romney has more than a snowball's chance in hell. So fine, might as well.

Why did I post a Hitler spoof video where it looks like Hitler is angry about discovering that Obama ate his dog Fluffy?

BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY! And as I mentioned before, I figured I'd just post it and people would look at it, laugh, or not, and go on with their lives. And you know what? Other people thought it was funny too. Now you know. Shall we make it one fifth now?

[smc]

Ok, attention everyone following this thread. This thread that I started was intended to be a place to discuss the GOP candidates. I posted a spoof video that had nothing to do with GOP candidates. I know that was poor form. Neither Hitler, Obama or Obama's dog eating past have anything to do with the GOP, but I thought well it's just one quick post. I figured people would look at it, laugh, or not, and go on with their lives. Yeah I know, I keep forgetting about smc. So the posted video and the following posts are now one tenth of a 6 page thread on GOP candidates. smc sees nothing wrong with continuing with his hitler spoof video interrogations in this same thread so fine. There's only one GOP candidate now anyway. At least only Romney has more than a snowball's chance in hell. So fine, might as well.

Why did I post a Hitler spoof video where it looks like Hitler is angry about discovering that Obama ate his dog Fluffy?

BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY! And as I mentioned before, I figured I'd just post it and people would look at it, laugh, or not, and go on with their lives. And you know what? Other people thought it was funny too. Now you know. Shall we make it one fifth now?

If I believed humans had souls, I'd wonder what happened to yours. But I don't.

[TracyCoxx]

If I believed humans had souls, I'd wonder what happened to yours. But I don't.

What can I say, some moderators bring the best out of people. Don't stop now. We have arrived here at your insistence. I've tried ignoring you in the past, so now I'm indulging you. People are wondering why one tenth of this thread is filled with this nonsense. Show them what is so important about your issues that make turning one insignificant post into a 30 post train wreck. We are dying to know!

[smc]

What can I say, some moderators bring the best out of people. Don't stop now. We have arrived here at your insistence. I've tried ignoring you in the past, so now I'm indulging you. People are wondering why one tenth of this thread is filled with this nonsense. Show them what is so important about your issues that make turning one insignificant post into a 30 post train wreck. We are dying to know!

Attention all readers of this thread: Here's what has actually transpired. All you have to do is read the record -- that is, the existing posts -- to see what TracyCoxx has done.

First, TracyCoxx posted the link to the video. I wrote:

In an electoral environment where people have claimed a legitimate place in the political arena while carrying signs of Obama made to look like Adolph Hitler, and even comparing him to Hitler, this kind of thing ... even in jest ... is absolutely disgusting and without merit. ...

I ask you, Tracy Coxx, do you repudiate all of your ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons?
I never accused TracyCoxx of making the comparison.

TracyCoxx posted no response to my direct question. Instead, TracyCoxx posted:

The joke obviously wasn't meant for you then.

When I asked the question again, tslust asked me if I similarly repudiated all liberals who compared Bush to Hitler? I did, unequivocally. In response, tslust posted: "Thanks enough said."

Then TracyCoxx twisted the thread into being about me accusing TracyCoxx of making the comparison, which I never did. All I did was raise a question about the comparison in the context of the GOP -- a question legitimate to the thread.

The record is there for all to see.

Oh, by the way, TracyCoxx has never answered the question I originally posed.

[TracyCoxx]

First, TracyCoxx posted the link to the video. I wrote:

In an electoral environment where people have claimed a legitimate place in the political arena while carrying signs of Obama made to look like Adolph Hitler, and even comparing him to Hitler, this kind of thing ... even in jest ... is absolutely disgusting and without merit. ...

I ask you, Tracy Coxx, do you repudiate all of your ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons?
I never accused TracyCoxx of making the comparison.If you're not accusing me of making the comparison, then what does the obama/hitler comparison have to do with anything? It's not me or something I said, and it's not the video -there's no obama/hitler comparison at all in the video. If you can show how the random fact that some people somewhere carry signs of Obama made to look like Adolf Hitler has anything to do with a Hitler spoof video made to look like Obama ate Hitler's dog then I'll answer your question. Otherwise you're trying to derail the discussion again. And no, I'm not dodging. I'm not going to answer every random inflammatory, extraneous, off-topic remark you make. The Obama/Hitler comparison has nothing to do with the video. You're just flinging crap to see what sticks.

[smc]

If you're not accusing me of making the comparison, then what does the obama/hitler comparison have to do with anything? It's not me or something I said, and it's not the video -there's no obama/hitler comparison at all in the video. If you can show how the random fact that some people somewhere carry signs of Obama made to look like Adolf Hitler has anything to do with a Hitler spoof video made to look like Obama ate Hitler's dog then I'll answer your question. Otherwise you're trying to derail the discussion again. And no, I'm not dodging. I'm not going to answer every random inflammatory, extraneous, off-topic remark you make. The Obama/Hitler comparison has nothing to do with the video. You're just flinging crap to see what sticks.

This is a thread about GOP candidates, every one of whom during the primary season kowtowed to the Tea Party. At Tea Party rallies, these comparisons have been made through signs carried. No candidate has disavowed this. It is a legitimate discussion for the thread.

Your continued refusal to answer the question and your continued effort to suggest that it has been posted illegitimately or that it is "random" or "extraneous" or whatever speaks volumes. Your accusation that I am "just flinging crap to see what sticks" is not only untrue, but it is an insult to everyone who reads this thread, because it suggests that they are stupid and even, perhaps, functionally illiterate.

You should take a lesson from tslust, who more often than not agrees with your political positions. tslust didn't see the point as extraneous, but instead turned the question back at me. We both thus had an opportunity to repudiate these comparisons.

The only defense you seem to have left, as stated in this latest post, is that what you posted is extraneous itself, and has nothing to do with anything relevant to the thread. No one believes that. You're just saying that because you're too much of a coward to own up to the facts as stated in my earlier post and your own responsibility in derailing this thread, which you cynically sought to assign to me.

[GRH]

I've pretty much tuned out this entire Hitler back-and-forth. But for what it's worth, Tracy, you DO have a pretty well established history of dodging the meat and potatoes of a post and trying to change the topic. Presumably this is because you don't have a substantive argument to back up your beliefs.

[TracyCoxx]

This is a thread about GOP candidates, every one of whom during the primary season kowtowed to the Tea Party. At Tea Party rallies, these comparisons have been made through signs carried. No candidate has disavowed this. It is a legitimate discussion for the thread.Impressive associative reasoning, no doubt invented right before you wrote the above post, but you made the link. A tenuous one, but a link, so I'll indulge you some more.

So are you saying you're asking my thoughts about the Obama/Hitler comparison because this is a GOP candidates thread, and the Hitler video reminded you that some supporters of the tea party, a political movement that the GOP candidates gave varying degrees of lip service to, have made Obama/Hitler comparisons? And not because the video itself compares Obama to Hitler in any way?

I've pretty much tuned out this entire Hitler back-and-forth. But for what it's worth, Tracy, you DO have a pretty well established history of dodging the meat and potatoes of a post and trying to change the topic. Presumably this is because you don't have a substantive argument to back up your beliefs.In other words, you haven't read this post, but you're going to say because you've seen me dodge smc in the past I have no point now. Yes, I've dodged him in the past when he's used administrative measures to settle an argument. He's doing better now so I'm indulging his attempts to derail the topic. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've always done my best to answer your posts to me. I know smc has a habit of answering for you, as he does for other people, so maybe you think me avoiding him and his attempts to derail topics equates to me avoiding answering you. But as far as I know, I have always responded to you. I don't expect you to notice every nuance between smc and me, because frankly, most if it is pretty juvenile, so I cut you slack for your perception of me, and your rude posts (http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=206682&postcount=231) to me and answer calmly and to the best of my ability because you seem like an intelligent person that I'd like to have a conversation with if you know who wouldn't keep getting in the middle of it.

prediction: smc will now accuse me of wanting private conversations. I am not though. It would just be nice to have a conversation with other people on this forum without being interrupted by the same person every single time.

[smc]

^^^ NOTICE ABOVE that TracyCoxx continues to post justifications for what can now only be construed as troll-like behavior (as generally defined with respect to Internet forums) rather than address the questions posed to him about politics in a political thread. NOTICE ABOVE how TracyCoxx tries to denigrate GRH with his inferences and charges (and especially by trying to tie her to me in a scurrilous way). NOTICE ABOVE that TracyCoxx once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who TracyCoxx doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations. And finally, NOTICE ABOVE that TracyCoxx is still dodging the substantive political issue raised in this discussion that TracyCoxx provoked.

[TracyCoxx]

uh oh... smc is using font size 3 now. This must be serious! I'd hate to get him up to font size 4 :(
NOTICE ABOVE how TracyCoxx tries to denigrate GRH with his inferences and charges (and especially by trying to tie her to me in a scurrilous way).Careful GRH, you wouldn't want to read my response to you without being properly framed by smc. smc, you are denigrating GRH and everyone else here you answer for by presuming they cannot think for themselves.

And did I nail it or what?
prediction: smc will now accuse me of wanting private conversations. I am not though. It would just be nice to have a conversation with other people on this forum without being interrupted by the same person every single time.

more font size 3 stuff...
NOTICE ABOVE that TracyCoxx once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who TracyCoxx doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations.LOL it shouldn't amuse me so much to predict the oh so predictable. But seriously... I'm not saying conversations have to be private at all, but after 4-5 years on here I just wonder what it's like to talk to someone without being interrupted by the moderator. Just wondering... Can I wonder?

And finally, NOTICE ABOVE that TracyCoxx is still dodging the substantive political issue raised in this discussion that TracyCoxx provoked.No, now hold on. I'm going to have to get you on that one. You said:
This is a thread about GOP candidates, every one of whom during the primary season kowtowed to the Tea Party. At Tea Party rallies, these comparisons have been made through signs carried. No candidate has disavowed this. It is a legitimate discussion for the thread.
So in your round-about reasoning this is a legitimate discussion for the thread. Fine, you go and discuss it. I still don't see how this is a discussion I provoked.

[smc]

Careful GRH, you wouldn't want to read my response to you without being properly framed by smc. smc, you are denigrating GRH and everyone else here you answer for by presuming they cannot think for themselves.

Dodge and dissemble. Your name must be Tracy D. Coxx.

And did I nail it or what?

Sure, it looks like you did since you use the time-honored trick of doing something, calling it something else, and then making a big issue of it as the "something else" every time you're called on doing the "something" it really is.

LOL it shouldn't amuse me so much to predict the oh so predictable. But seriously... I'm not saying conversations have to be private at all, but after 4-5 years on here I just wonder what it's like to talk to someone without being interrupted by the moderator. Just wondering... Can I wonder?

More dodge and dissemble. You just don't want to have to answer when you can't ... just as GRH wrote in her response to you above.

So in your round-about reasoning this is a legitimate discussion for the thread. Fine, you go and discuss it. I still don't see how this is a discussion I provoked.

Of course you "don't see" because you choose not to see, and because doing so requires that you answer the simple question I posed, and that tslust saw as a simple question, and that the two of us were able to answer to each other quite easily. I've lost track of how many times you've dodged the question now.

By the way, where's your post excoriating tslust for intervening in the discussion? :rolleyes:

[smc]

^ Come to think of it, I think we can conclude that because Tracy Coxx will not answer the question about Hitler, the Tea Party, and GOP candidates, we have to assume that Tracy Coxx is unwilling to repudiate the comparisons that others draw. I can think of no other reason not to answer the question. No one put on the spot would be likely to say that she or he legitimizes these comparisons (except maybe someone at a Tea Party rally or on Fox "News"), and only Tracy Coxx seems to think the question is illegitimate (in Tracy Coxx's case, though, we don't really know if that's an honest opinion or just an excuse for not having to answer).

Process of elimination can sometimes be a powerful thing in finding the truth.

[GRH]

Tracy, you've put words in my mouth. I was making no statement about whether you have a point in this current conversation...Only pointing out prior behavior and how it perhaps inflames this whole back-and-forth. Admittedly, you have done a better (perhaps not perfect...but who's perfect?) job of addressing my points/conversations. The whole dynamic between you and smc...It's comical at times. I will admit my own bias in that I share political disposition with smc on more topics than with you, so perhaps I'm drawn to taking his side more often than not. That said...You do come across as a troll quite often.

Quite frankly, I think you're both acting a bit childish. I'm so over this current conversation that I'm going to tune this thread out until it meanders into a discussion that I once again care to follow.

[smc]

Tracy, you've put words in my mouth. I was making no statement about whether you have a point in this current conversation...Only pointing out prior behavior and how it perhaps inflames this whole back-and-forth. Admittedly, you have done a better (perhaps not perfect...but who's perfect?) job of addressing my points/conversations. The whole dynamic between you and smc...It's comical at times. I will admit my own bias in that I share political disposition with smc on more topics than with you, so perhaps I'm drawn to taking his side more often than not. That said...You do come across as a troll quite often.

Quite frankly, I think you're both acting a bit childish. I'm so over this current conversation that I'm going to tune this thread out until it meanders into a discussion that I once again care to follow.

You're right, GRH ... it should have been over long ago. I'm going to drop out of it, too. TracyCoxx, as I documented, is responsible for extending it beyond my initial legitimate question about the comparison between Hitler and Obama made within the GOP context, broadly defined. It could have been over with a few posts about a relevant topic, but TracyCoxx chose to weave this tale of oppression, of how things were attributed to TracyCoxx that I never so attributed. That TracyCoxx has refused over and again to answer the original question, as I have suggested, is an answer itself. Case closed.

[TracyCoxx]

Of course you "don't see" because you choose not to see, and because doing so requires that you answer the simple question I posed

smc...
I know you're not stupid, so why do you keep pretending to be?

I posted a hitler spoof video, and then you asked me if I repudiate all of my ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons (between obama & hitler).

You have not pointed out any comparison in the video between obama and hitler. You've certainly agreed that I never said anything like that. It's really odd that you would suddenly blurt out such an off topic and inflamatory question. The only reason you've given is this:
This is a thread about GOP candidates, every one of whom during the primary season kowtowed to the Tea Party. At Tea Party rallies, these comparisons have been made through signs carried. No candidate has disavowed this. It is a legitimate discussion for the thread.Which is a general statement that because you think GOP candidates sympathize with the Tea Party, they must automatically agree with Tea Party supporters who carry obama/hitler signs. That may be a subject for this thread, in your own twisted reasoning, but it still does not explain what it has to do with the hitler spoof video I posted that makes no such comparison. With these off topic inflamatory remarks of your, I'd say you're trolling again.

By the way, where's your post excoriating tslust for intervening in the discussion? :rolleyes:Why, do you think I would have any reason to say the following about tslust:
It would just be nice to have a conversation with other people on this forum without being interrupted by [tslust] every single time.You're not making any sense again.

[TracyCoxx]

TracyCoxx chose to weave this tale of oppression, of how things were attributed to TracyCoxx that I never so attributed. That TracyCoxx has refused over and again to answer the original question, as I have suggested, is an answer itself.I'm oppressed? News to me. But I will not respond to your trolling. And since you still cannot say how your question has anything to do with the video you popped a gasket over that apparently is exactly what it was.

[smc]

smc...


I posted a hitler spoof video, and then you asked me if I repudiate all of my ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons (between obama & hitler).

You have not pointed out any comparison in the video between obama and hitler. You've certainly agreed that I never said anything like that. It's really odd that you would suddenly blurt out such an off topic and inflamatory question. The only reason you've given is this:
Which is a general statement that because you think GOP candidates sympathize with the Tea Party, they must automatically agree with Tea Party supporters who carry obama/hitler signs. That may be a subject for this thread, in your own twisted reasoning, but it still does not explain what it has to do with the hitler spoof video I posted that makes no such comparison. With these off topic inflamatory remarks of your, I'd say you're trolling again.

Why, do you think I would have any reason to say the following about tslust:
You're not making any sense again.

I'm oppressed? News to me. But I will not respond to your trolling. And since you still cannot say how your question has anything to do with the video you popped a gasket over that apparently is exactly what it was.

Everyone one of these points has been dealt with over and over. You know it, and so does anyone who reads this thread. Your only purpose is obvious: through obfuscation, refuse to answer the legitimate question about GOP candidates that was posed.

Refusal, over and over and over ... because, as GRH said better than I ever have:

Tracy, you DO have a pretty well established history of dodging the meat and potatoes of a post and trying to change the topic. Presumably this is because you don't have a substantive argument to back up your beliefs.

I think the discussion is over. The conclusion is clear from this simple fact: TracyCoxx refuses to answer the question.

[TracyCoxx]

omg... this is disgusting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqkWhFcSA

Even Michelle cringed

[smc]

omg... this is disgusting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqkWhFcSA

Even Michelle cringed

The stuff about Mitt Romney's dog being transported atop the car began these shenanigans. While it may speak to Romney's character in some respects, it's a distraction from serious campaign issues. The GOP's recent response regarding Obama's culturally legitimate sampling of dog as a child (having spent some of his childhood in Indonesia) is no less of a distraction. That it can be dismissed humorously by the president, just as Romney has largely ignored the Seamus stories, is a breath of fresh air.

As for why this video was posted, well ... of course, it's TracyCoxx's parting shot after losing the last battle by refusing to answer the questions posed by his earlier provocation. But at least TracyCoxx is a gracious troll, by which I mean a troll who seems happy to confirm being a troll when called on it.

Oh, TracyCoxx, was I not supposed to post anything about this video, since my name wasn't mentioned in your post? I have a difficult time keeping track of the special privileges you've reserved for yourself when it comes to your participation here. Or is it just that I'm not supposed to post if you mention any other member by name? :lol:

[TracyCoxx]

The GOP's recent response regarding Obama's culturally legitimate sampling of dog as a child (having spent some of his childhood in Indonesia) is no less of a distraction.Culturally legitimate for someone not raised as an American, who is now for some reason an American president.

As for why this video was posted, well ... of course, it's TracyCoxx's parting shot after losing the last battle by refusing to answer the questions posed by his earlier provocation.You never did show that your question about obama/hitler comparisons were anything more than an off topic inflamatory remark and have yet to show any link to the video I posted that somehow prompted your question.

[smc]

Culturally legitimate for someone not raised as an American, who is now for some reason an American president.

FINALLY, TracyCoxx reveals the true TracyCoxx. Xenophobic, nativist, perhaps even racist ... just like all the right-wingers who raise this very issue of "otherness" about Obama.

The "some reason" you mention is called an election by American voters, voting for their American president.

[Enoch Root]

Culturally legitimate for someone not raised as an American, who is now for some reason an American president.

You never did show that your question about obama/hitler comparisons were anything more than an off topic inflamatory remark and have yet to show any link to the video I posted that somehow prompted your question.

Fucking amazing. Well done Tracy. I even applauded you for being so subtle. It's not "culturally legitimate" because he was not raised as an American. It's culturally legitimate because it's meat like any other.

And you really must give up this pretense about smc posting off topic remarks. He made it quite clear that it is troubling for you to have posted a video about Hitler reacting to Obama not because it made an explicit link between the two men but that they both were part of the video and that it was you of all people posting it.

[transjen]

I find it funny how the GOP cling to there Obama/Hitler BS when if you read your non Rush/Ann history books you will find that Hitler and the Nazis grabed power thru the use of hatred/fear which is the GOP trump card ever election cycle
:eek: Jeerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

FINALLY, TracyCoxx reveals the true TracyCoxx. Xenophobic, nativist, perhaps even racist ... just like all the right-wingers who raise this very issue of "otherness" about Obama.I do believe that an American president should be raised as an American. Sue me. No need to play the race card. Last I checked there were several races in America.

[TracyCoxx]

I find it funny how the GOP cling to there Obama/Hitler BSWho in the GOP clings to their obama/hitler bs? I have never made any such comparison and I can think of many reasons to get rid of BO that have nothing to do with hitler. (other than a video I saw where Obama ate Hitler's dog... just sad). Do you know any GOP candidates who spew obama/hitler BS? Let's not pretend that democrats didn't frequently compare Bush to hitler. And for the inevitable smc reply, not denouncing is not the same as spewing hitler bs. Not that they haven't denounced what some people have said about obama & hitler, I don't know. I'm just saying it's not the same.

Hopefully I've correctly stated my thoughts on this, but if not, perhaps some kind person will tell you what I really meant to say.

[TracyCoxx]

Fucking amazing. Well done Tracy. I even applauded you for being so subtle. It's not "culturally legitimate" because he was not raised as an American. It's culturally legitimate because it's meat like any other.Not in American culture it isn't. It's meat like any other in some non-american cultures.

And you really must give up this pretense about smc posting off topic remarks. He made it quite clear that it is troubling for you to have posted a video about Hitler reacting to Obama not because it made an explicit link between the two men but that they both were part of the video and that it was you of all people posting it.
His problem was that it was me of all people who posted it? LOL Actually I think you hit the nail on the head. I will not disagree with you there.

And when asked, smc did not say the video had anything to do with an obama/hitler comparison. He said it was just generally ok to raise that issue in this thread because:
This is a thread about GOP candidates, every one of whom during the primary season kowtowed to the Tea Party. At Tea Party rallies, these comparisons have been made through signs carried. No candidate has disavowed this. It is a legitimate discussion for the thread.It apparently had nothing to do with the video, and therefore nothing to do with me posting the video - other than, of course, it was me who posted the video. Good catch.

[Enoch Root]

You didn't surmise any big thing Tracy. You are known for being provocative, which smc repeated recently, so between that and the Obama/Hitler comparisons that have been made by the Tea party the posting of the video is suspect at best. You are not the victim here and you insult everyone by trying to portray yourself as such when a good reading of the posts reveals you.

You are a hell of a poker player for doubling down on this parochial nonsense.

Give it a rest will you? I've been reading this Obama/Hitler stuff for too many days now.

[TracyCoxx]

Give it a rest will you? I've been reading this Obama/Hitler stuff for too many days now.You brought it up again in post 310. I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you as well.

[transjen]

the Obama/Hitler BS from the GOP
Let's start with the queen of the Tea party wack-a-dos Sarah Palin while doing her cause fear bus tour spoke about Obamacare claiming that every senior would have to go before a death panel before recieving an ok for any healthcare and then said you know who else had deathpanels? that's right Adolf Hitler and the Nazis
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Who in the GOP clings to their obama/hitler bs? .... Do you know any GOP candidates who spew obama/hitler BS?

the Obama/Hitler BS from the GOP
Let's start with the queen of the Tea party wack-a-dos Sarah Palin while doing her cause fear bus tour spoke about Obamacare claiming that every senior would have to go before a death panel before recieving an ok for any healthcare and then said you know who else had deathpanels? that's right Adolf Hitler and the Nazis
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

I don't understand... I asked who in the GOP makes obama/hitler comparisons. You give a Sarah Palin example where she does not actually compare obama to hitler. Who made the comparison? You did. Actually her deathpanel jab sounds more like a comparison to Obama's own science czar, John Holdren.

[smc]

My friends, please be careful with your posts, lest you allow TracyCoxx to change the subject and/or continue to avoid asking the question that I originally posed. TracyCoxx is correct that no specific GOP leaders/personalities/elected representatives make the comparison. But the GOP generally kowtows to the Tea Party, where the comparison has been made in the form of numerous signs (and innuendo) at rallies. My question was about these GOP folks directly repudiating that crap, in the same way that John McCain famously stopped his rally to correct the wacko old lady who called Obama a Muslim. And it was about TracyCoxx repudiating the comparison ... something TracyCoxx still refuses to do.

Those who do not repudiate these comparisons, those who allow them to stand, are complicit. Sure, the politicians refuse because they fear upsetting the "base." But McCain understood it as a matter of principle, on that occasion I just cited. Mitt Romney, who has no principles, does not, which is why he refused to repudiate the woman who said at one of his recent rallies that Obama should be tried for treason.

[TracyCoxx]

Careful with this guilt by association line you're talking. Obama's worked hard to distance himself from all those shady characters like his anti-American "pastor", his terrorist friends and mentors and his communist mentors. And heck, we'd have to take another look at the the Democratic party too with the way they turn the other cheek about the new black panthers and the election manipulating acorn organization. Obama and the Democratics don't really support those people, do they?

[smc]

Careful with this guilt by association line you're talking. Obama's worked hard to distance himself from all those shady characters like his anti-American "pastor", his terrorist friends and mentors and his communist mentors. And heck, we'd have to take another look at the the Democratic party too with the way they turn the other cheek about the new black panthers and the election manipulating acorn organization. Obama and the Democratics don't really support those people, do they?

As usual, you dodge the question directed at YOU, TracyCoxx, by trying to muddy the waters or change the subject. If it weren't so transparent every time you do it, I might acknowledge you as a master.

But these other things have been dealt with in past discussions. For my part, I do not support Obama. I reject the philosophy Bill Ayres once embraced of what real revolutionists (those who believe in the action of the masses) call "individual terrorism." The "new black panthers" are two or three guys ... and the bullshit story about them has been completely debunked by several investigative (and non-partisan) journalists. The ACORN thing is a sham, too, and we've already had extensive discussions about voter fraud (back when the ACORN stuff broke), during which you -- TracyCoxx -- worked overtime to try (like here) not to acknowledge the many examples given of Republican-based voter fraud shenanigans.

[transjen]

I don't understand... I asked who in the GOP makes obama/hitler comparisons. You give a Sarah Palin example where she does not actually compare obama to hitler. Who made the comparison? You did. Actually her deathpanel jab sounds more like a comparison to Obama's own science czar, John Holdren.

I can understand why you don't want to admit that Sarah Palin is part of the GOP but GOP she is and like Romney she's a snake and does it in a indirect way and therefore can cliam she was taken out of context all the time knowing her followers got the message and the next day FOX AND RUSH spend the whole next day spreading her message along
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

reported on CNN today
When Mitt attend his fancy prepschool he was a bully as he and five of his buddies beat up another student and the reason was because they felt that student was gay :eek: so Mitt being the compassionate Morman felt him and his buddies had every right to beat up a gay student
just got to love these GOP members who always talk about fellowing the teaching of the bible
So perhaps someone here can tell me the chapter and verse in the bible where GOD commands Thou shall beat the living daylights out of gays and transgendered
:confused: Jerseygirl Jen

[GRH]

Jen, that's taking the story entirely out of context. The student ended up being gay, but Romney's bullying can't be definitively linked to the student's sexuality. According to Romney (for whatever that's worth), the kid came out years later.

This is typical election year BS. I place about as much weight on this as the fact that Obama smoked reefer in college. Big deal. People are VERY different from their high school/adolescent years and the maturity of adulthood.

With that said, it wouldn't surprise me if Romney didn't sport a streak of homophobia (like many Republicans), but you can't really use juvenile incidents to prove it. There's a reason that juvenile criminal records are sealed...Kids do dumb shit when they're young. You're making this out to be a much bigger deal than it really is.

[transjen]

Jen, that's taking the story entirely out of context. The student ended up being gay, but Romney's bullying can't be definitively linked to the student's sexuality. According to Romney (for whatever that's worth), the kid came out years later.

This is typical election year BS. I place about as much weight on this as the fact that Obama smoked reefer in college. Big deal. People are VERY different from their high school/adolescent years and the maturity of adulthood.

With that said, it wouldn't surprise me if Romney didn't sport a streak of homophobia (like many Republicans), but you can't really use juvenile incidents to prove it. There's a reason that juvenile criminal records are sealed...Kids do dumb shit when they're young. You're making this out to be a much bigger deal than it really is.

So because the kid was gay and Mitt's gaydar was working properly make Mitt not a bully and excusses him and his friends , well it does matter once a bully always a bully and it shows how he feels about others who don't think like himeveryone has the right to freedom only as long as you think and do as he doesthis lets others see his morman values and his views on freedom which is anyone not living in his narrow view has no right to live as they want

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

You're right, GRH ... it should have been over long ago. I'm going to drop out of it, too. TracyCoxx, as I documented, is responsible for extending it beyond my initial legitimate question about the comparison between Hitler and Obama made within the GOP context, broadly defined. It could have been over with a few posts about a relevant topic, but TracyCoxx chose to weave this tale of oppression, of how things were attributed to TracyCoxx that I never so attributed. That TracyCoxx has refused over and again to answer the original question, as I have suggested, is an answer itself. Case closed.

Actually it went on for as long as it did because of your insistence that I answer a question that had nothing to do with the spoof video I posted, and was only as you claim relevant to the thread. So I am still wondering why, if it had nothing to do with the video i posted, why are you insisting on an answer from me? In other words, how did I get tangled up in your subtopic?

[smc]

Actually it went on for as long as it did because of your insistence that I answer a question that had nothing to do with the spoof video I posted, and was only as you claim relevant to the thread. So I am still wondering why, if it had nothing to do with the video i posted, why are you insisting on an answer from me? In other words, how did I get tangled up in your subtopic?

You're just full of shit, aren't you? The reasons for the relevance of my question has been well established. You simply choose to keep pretending it's not relevant so you don't have to answer the question about GOP candidates. Were you an honest, genuine discussant of these issues, aiming for real discourse, you would follow the lead of tslust and how tslust addressed the issue. But you continue to demonstrate that if you are not all troll, the tendency to be troll-like is strong within you.

[TracyCoxx]

You're just full of shit, aren't you? The reasons for the relevance of my question has been well established. You simply choose to keep pretending it's not relevant so you don't have to answer the question about GOP candidates. Were you an honest, genuine discussant of these issues, aiming for real discourse, you would follow the lead of tslust and how tslust addressed the issue. But you continue to demonstrate that if you are not all troll, the tendency to be troll-like is strong within you.

Sorry smc, I'm not going to let you get away with this bs. The record is here for all to see:
Then TracyCoxx twisted the thread into being about me accusing TracyCoxx of making the comparison, which I never did. All I did was raise a question about the comparison in the context of the GOP -- a question legitimate to the thread.

The record is there for all to see.You say that I said you're accusing me of making a comparison (between Obama and Hitler). An assumption on my part because it's the only reason I could think of that you'd be pestering me about it. Ok, you're not accusing me of making a comparison. Fine. Like your quote above says, you're raising a question about the comparison in the context of the GOP, which you say is legitimate to the thread. If you said "that video you posted compares Obama to Hitler (which it doesn't) I ask you, Tracy Coxx, do you repudiate all of your ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons?" That I can see, if you erroneously thought the video made the comparison. But it doesn't and you never said it did, so I'm sorry, I am unable to make the connection from what you say is a legitimate thread discussion to my specific posting of that video. And I will treat it as the off-topic (in the context of the video I posted) inflammatory remark (i.e. troll-like remark) that it is. Better luck next time.

[smc]

Sorry smc, I'm not going to let you get away with this bs. The record is here for all to see:
You say that I said you're accusing me of making a comparison (between Obama and Hitler). An assumption on my part because it's the only reason I could think of that you'd be pestering me about it. Ok, you're not accusing me of making a comparison. Fine. Like your quote above says, you're raising a question about the comparison in the context of the GOP, which you say is legitimate to the thread. If you said "that video you posted compares Obama to Hitler (which it doesn't) I ask you, Tracy Coxx, do you repudiate all of your ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons?" That I can see, if you erroneously thought the video made the comparison. But it doesn't and you never said it did, so I'm sorry, I am unable to make the connection from what you say is a legitimate thread discussion to my specific posting of that video. And I will treat it as the off-topic (in the context of the video I posted) inflammatory remark (i.e. troll-like remark) that it is. Better luck next time.

Congratulations on one of your more articulate dodges. I note that still, after all this time, you have not repudiated the comparison made by so many of your ideological cothinkers.

So, here goes. Forget about the video for now.

TracyCoxx, many of those who I believe could be rightly called your ideological cothinkers on a number of issues have compared Obama to Hitler. This has been done in the form of signs at Tea Party rallies and even in statements made public. Throughout the GOP primaries, and since, Republican candidates for the presidency have failed to repudiate these comparisons. I ask you, TracyCoxx, do you repudiate the comparisons between Hitler and Obama?

[smc]

Congratulations on one of your more articulate dodges. I note that still, after all this time, you have not repudiated the comparison made by so many of your ideological cothinkers.

So, here goes. Forget about the video for now.

TracyCoxx, many of those who I believe could be rightly called your ideological cothinkers on a number of issues have compared Obama to Hitler. This has been done in the form of signs at Tea Party rallies and even in statements made public. Throughout the GOP primaries, and since, Republican candidates for the presidency have failed to repudiate these comparisons. I ask you, TracyCoxx, do you repudiate the comparisons between Hitler and Obama?

By the way, this is a simple yes-or-no question.

[TracyCoxx]

Congratulations on one of your more articulate dodges. I note that still, after all this time, you have not repudiated the comparison made by so many of your ideological cothinkers.

So, here goes. Forget about the video for now.
So are you saying now that you can separate the fact that some people have compared Obama to Hitler from my posting of a simple hitler spoof video?

Are you not now accusing me, as this post implies:
In an electoral environment where people have claimed a legitimate place in the political arena while carrying signs of Obama made to look like Adolph Hitler, and even comparing him to Hitler, this kind of thing ... even in jest ... is absolutely disgusting and without merit.

Personally, as someone who counts 64 members of his family lost to the Nazis in death camps, I find this to be reprehensible.of posting a video that personally attacks you and others who have lost family members and loved ones to this monster? If so, I will answer your question.

[smc]

So are you saying now that you can separate the fact that some people have compared Obama to Hitler from my posting of a simple hitler spoof video?

Are you not now accusing me, as this post implies:
of posting a video that personally attacks you and others who have lost family members and loved ones to this monster? If so, I will answer your question.

I am tying up loose ends. Your post is yet another dodge. I did not accuse you, as anyone reading the post and the subsequent discussion can see (which includes you). I don't think anything more needs to be said other than to point out, for the final time, that you have been given numerous opportunities to repudiate the comparison made by Tea Party demonstrators between Hitler and Obama, as well as some talk radio hosts -- a comparison that GOP candidates and other leaders have refused to repudiate or simply ignore. No matter what twist or turn the discussion of the original posting of the video takes, by your hand (or, as you would accuse, mine), you have behaved exactly as the GOP leaders: dodge the question, ignore the question, try to move the discussion in another direction ...

But what you haven't done is repudiate the comparison. Period. And at this point, I think everyone can draw her or his own conclusion about what that says about TracyCoxx.

[TracyCoxx]

And your latest bans demonstrates once again why it's not worth having a serious discussion with you. You, as always, are free to discuss what you want here. You will do it without me though. There's other far more interesting people here to talk to and I should take advantage of that while they're still around.

[ila]

And your latest bans demonstrates once again why it's not worth having a serious discussion with you...

You're wrong. smc has banned anyone recently.

[TracyCoxx]

He likes to keep his hands clean and have others do it for him. Either way, there are far more interesting people here to talk to and I should take advantage of that while they're still around.

[ila]

He likes to keep his hands clean and have others do it for him.

He had nothing to do with it and never had anyone do it for him.

[smc]

He had nothing to do with it and never had anyone do it for him.

ila, you are wasting your time. For TracyCoxx, the truth is never going to get in the way of making a "point." Meanwhile, I am left to wonder why TracyCoxx is allowed to make such a slanderous claim even after it has been refuted

[TracyCoxx]

He likes to keep his hands clean and have others do it for him.

Meanwhile, I am left to wonder why TracyCoxx is allowed to make such a slanderous claim even after it has been refuted

Yeah... Like that

[smc]

Yeah... Like that

Exactly. You made the false claim. Now you double down. Tell the site owner in your next email that I called you a liar for the specific post and your doubling down on the false accusation ... an irrefutable fact. You were told by a moderator that what you posted wasn't true, and you still made the claim.. And you can add that I called your continued refusal to disavow the link made by your co-thinkers between Hitler and Obama, from which your latest crap posts are yet another dodge, an act of political cowardice ... which you have in a quantity that is truly staggering.

Click on "Contact Us" below to lodge your latest whining "I am the victim" PM to the site owner.

[ila]

And your latest bans demonstrates once again why it's not worth having a serious discussion with you. You, as always, are free to discuss what you want here. You will do it without me though. There's other far more interesting people here to talk to and I should take advantage of that while they're still around.

You're wrong. smc has banned anyone recently.

He likes to keep his hands clean and have others do it for him. Either way, there are far more interesting people here to talk to and I should take advantage of that while they're still around.

He had nothing to do with it and never had anyone do it for him.

To clear things up and so there is no ambiguity whatsoever, the site owner and I were the only ones involved in the last bans. No one suggested it, demanded it, or even hinted at it. We did it as forum rules were broken and not for the first time by the affected individuals. Action had to be taken and it was.

Now it is time to put this thread back on the topic for which it was intended.

[smc]

ila, you are wasting your time. For TracyCoxx, the truth is never going to get in the way of making a "point." Meanwhile, I am left to wonder why TracyCoxx is allowed to make such a slanderous claim even after it has been refuted

To clear things up and so there is no ambiguity whatsoever, the site owner and I were the only ones involved in the last bans. No one suggested it, demanded it, or even hinted at it. We did it as forum rules were broken and not for the first time by the affected individuals. Action had to be taken and it was. ...

And TracyCoxx even gets to continue posting despite being an inveterate liar about what I did in my moderator capacity. Go figure ...

[smc]

It is often brought up in political discourse that those who are most vehemently anti-abortion rights seem to have little interest in ensuring that society cares for the needs of children once they are born. I suggest that Mitt Romney would make a strong exception for this child:

[TracyCoxx]

It is often brought up in political discourse that those who are most vehemently anti-abortion rights seem to have little interest in ensuring that society cares for the needs of children once they are born. I suggest that Mitt Romney would make a strong exception for this child:

Woah... D?j? vu (http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=216944&postcount=324) all over again

[smc]

Woah... D?j? vu (http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=216944&postcount=324) all over again

So, I forgot that I had posted this a couple of weeks again in a different thread. Whoops.

While I have absolutely no doubt that you, TracyCoxx, have never made any mistake at any time anywhere that is even remotely like mine :rolleyes:, one wonders whether you can defend the presumptive GOP candidate on this issue.

[TracyCoxx]

one wonders whether you can defend the presumptive GOP candidate on this issue.not to try and be dense, but what specific issue are you talking about? Yeah I know it's a knock on big evil corporations, but what about it?

[smc]

not to try and be dense, but what specific issue are you talking about? Yeah I know it's a knock on big evil corporations, but what about it?

It's about corporations being "people," which is obvious even to you ... as are the implications in our political system.

[TracyCoxx]

It's about corporations being "people," which is obvious even to you ... as are the implications in our political system.

I think Mitt says it pretty simply:
"Corporations are people my friend... Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?"

Those earnings go to people. Then they get taxed on those earnings. If you tax the corporation as well, you're taxing those people twice. As for your cartoon... A woman would be far more likely to give birth to a sole proprietorship don't you think?

In Obama's latest ads he's saying he's for insourcing. Yet his policies say otherwise. What corporation looking at this map (http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11865-corporate-tax-by-country.html#axzz20hfpYDhM) would want to do business in the USA?

[smc]

I think Mitt says it pretty simply:
"Corporations are people my friend... Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?"

Those earnings go to people. Then they get taxed on those earnings. If you tax the corporation as well, you're taxing those people twice. As for your cartoon... A woman would be far more likely to give birth to a sole proprietorship don't you think?

In Obama's latest ads he's saying he's for insourcing. Yet his policies say otherwise. What corporation looking at this map (http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11865-corporate-tax-by-country.html#axzz20hfpYDhM) would want to do business in the USA?

I didn't expect you to answer the real question about the "implications in our political system" for defining corporations as people (which gives them the rights people enjoy). Thanks for living up to my expectations.

[TracyCoxx]

I didn't expect you to answer the real question about the "implications in our political system" for defining corporations as people (which gives them the rights people enjoy). Thanks for living up to my expectations.

Oh, sorry. When you lead your response with "It's about corporations being "people" I thought that was the real question. I was going to thank you for this new rational dialog we've been having the last few days. Let's keep it going rather than devolving into our usual BS. Other than the way the implications to our political system question was downplayed in your response, it didn't occur to me to respond because, other than the sides the left and right have obviously taken I see no other implications. But please fill me in.

I know you wouldn't make the same mistake I made when I didn't answer your other question, so I'll wait for your answer to "What corporation looking at this map (http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11865-corporate-tax-by-country.html#axzz20hfpYDhM) would want to do business in the USA?"

[smc]

Oh, sorry. When you lead your response with "It's about corporations being "people" I thought that was the real question. I was going to thank you for this new rational dialog we've been having the last few days. Let's keep it going rather than devolving into our usual BS. Other than the way the implications to our political system question was downplayed in your response, it didn't occur to me to respond because, other than the sides the left and right have obviously taken I see no other implications. But please fill me in.

I'm sorry, too, because I really can't follow what you write in the quote just above. Please clarify. I'm serious; I don't get the next-to-last sentence in the paragraph.

I know you wouldn't make the same mistake I made when I didn't answer your other question, so I'll wait for your answer to "What corporation looking at this map (http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11865-corporate-tax-by-country.html#axzz20hfpYDhM) would want to do business in the USA?"

You are trying to change the subject, as usual. We can have a discussion about corporate tax rates and other criteria that might be reasonable for corporations to decide where to do business. But answer the question: do you think corporations are people in that they should have the same rights afforded to individuals (such as "free speech" as defined in Citizens United, coupled with the "right" to be completely secretive about who is actually exercising that "right")?

[tslust]

What corporation looking at this map (http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11865-corporate-tax-by-country.html#axzz20hfpYDhM) would want to do business in the USA?

Wow, to hear the liberals talk, the corporations in America are not taxed at all (in GE's [the company in obama's back pocket] case this would be true). The only country with a coperate rate higher than ours (40%) is United Arab Emirates.

[TracyCoxx]

I'm sorry, too, because I really can't follow what you write in the quote just above. Please clarify. I'm serious; I don't get the next-to-last sentence in the paragraph.Perhaps I was too vague. But I see from your last post perhaps what you're talking about when you say political implications. Your talking about corporations and free speech?
do you think corporations are people in that they should have the same rights afforded to individuals (such as "free speech" as defined in Citizens United, coupled with the "right" to be completely secretive about who is actually exercising that "right")?Just as corporations are made up of people, and therefore already taxed, they also have the right to free speech. I know this is an issue for you and you asked me about my views on this a while back and I answered it the same way. Deja vu all over again. I think just as Hollywood puts out movies laced with the left viewpoint time after time, and the media presents the left viewpoint time after time, corporations (as the people they consist of do) have the right to free speech as well. Your argument may be that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits, like barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing. Extrapolate from there and you can forbid newspapers from making endorsements. Media companies are exempt from the ban. Why should newspapers be free to spend money urging support of a candidate while other companies are not?

You are trying to change the subject, as usual. We can have a discussion about corporate tax rates and other criteria that might be reasonable for corporations to decide where to do business.
You're saying we can talk about other criteria that decides where a corporation does business and remain on "subject" but not how corporate taxes influence where corporations do business? No I think that's part of the equation. Sure you can tax corporations or any other entity to its knees but there are consequences and that is part of the subject. Please answer the question.

What corporation looking at this map (http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11865-corporate-tax-by-country.html#axzz20hfpYDhM) would want to do business in the USA?

[smc]

Just as corporations are made up of people, and therefore already taxed, they also have the right to free speech. I know this is an issue for you and you asked me about my views on this a while back and I answered it the same way. Deja vu all over again. I think just as Hollywood puts out movies laced with the left viewpoint time after time, and the media presents the left viewpoint time after time, corporations (as the people they consist of do) have the right to free speech as well. Your argument may be that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits, like barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing. Extrapolate from there and you can forbid newspapers from making endorsements. Media companies are exempt from the ban. Why should newspapers be free to spend money urging support of a candidate while other companies are not?

I find your analogy to Hollywood movies to be rather specious, and I contend that there are umpteen movies that espouse what some might call the "right viewpoint," but be that as it may ... Here's a big difference. In a Hollywood movie, who is funding the message and stating the message is clear. When a corporation funds a political advertisement, it is not even remotely as transparent. So, would you at least agree that the transparency should be there for the corporate funders?

You're saying we can talk about other criteria that decides where a corporation does business and remain on "subject" but not how corporate taxes influence where corporations do business? No I think that's part of the equation. Sure you can tax corporations or any other entity to its knees but there are consequences and that is part of the subject. Please answer the question.

What corporation looking at this map (http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11865-corporate-tax-by-country.html#axzz20hfpYDhM) would want to do business in the USA?

Your question is an attempt to introduce something to the equation that is tangential. Whether a corporation wants to do business here or there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a corporation and a person are equal by definition and thus have equal "rights." I could put a map of impoverished places in the world, where all water is unpotable, disease is rampant, there are no educational opportunities, and food is scarce, and ask "What person would want to live here?" Does the answer have anything to do with our subject? Of course not.

Nevertheless, since based on experience one might reasonably assume you will pretend not to see the point and accuse me of not answering your question now asked multiple times, I will state that I don't think corporate taxes are high enough in this country. Now, you can take that up as a way of avoiding the subject I first raised ... it is my gift to you, because you are always so deserving.

(Yes, that's sarcasm.)

[TracyCoxx]

When a corporation funds a political advertisement, it is not even remotely as transparent. So, would you at least agree that the transparency should be there for the corporate funders?Heaven forbid a voter actually try and read between the lines and think about what's really been said. Yes I agree it would be nice to know who's behind the message... but Constitutionally, I can't see the reasoning behind that.

Your question is an attempt to introduce something to the equation that is tangential.You posted your cartoon about giving birth to a corporation and referenced Romney. I didn't know what Romney said about corporations being people so I googled it and found something on him talking about corporate taxes. I assumed corporate taxes were what you were talking about. And when I think about corporate taxes, whether or not the government should tax corporations is the first thing I think about and the second is the competitiveness of our corporations. You must admit we think very differently. Don't think I'm purposely trying to tick you off. I just don't see things the same way you do or have the same concerns as you.

Whether a corporation wants to do business here or there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a corporation and a person are equal by definition and thus have equal "rights."No, it doesn't, if your comment and cartoon was about the rights of a corporation. I assumed it was about taxes though. Does that mean you will not answer my question about corporate taxes?

[smc]

Heaven forbid a voter actually try and read between the lines and think about what's really been said. Yes I agree it would be nice to know who's behind the message... but Constitutionally, I can't see the reasoning behind that.

That's why we have a Constitution that's meant to be interpreted. In this case, the interests of democracy might be a compelling reason to mandate such transparency.

You posted your cartoon about giving birth to a corporation and referenced Romney. I didn't know what Romney said about corporations being people so I googled it and found something on him talking about corporate taxes. I assumed corporate taxes were what you were talking about. And when I think about corporate taxes, whether or not the government should tax corporations is the first thing I think about and the second is the competitiveness of our corporations. You must admit we think very differently. Don't think I'm purposely trying to tick you off. I just don't see things the same way you do or have the same concerns as you.

I find it really, really, really, really hard to believe that you never saw the video of Romney in Iowa saying "corporations are people" and then giving a completely illogical followup to his comment that is the equivalent of saying that anything that does something for people or gives something to people is thus itself people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

No, it doesn't, if your comment and cartoon was about the rights of a corporation. I assumed it was about taxes though. Does that mean you will not answer my question about corporate taxes?

I do not think corporations pay enough taxes. Eliminate every one of the ridiculous loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes -- you know what I'm talking about -- and eliminate every ridiculous subsidy that gives our tax dollars to corporations that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, and perhaps I'll take a new look at the corporate tax rate. Until then, the argument is a bunch of crap, as I see it.

[GRH]

Wow, to hear the liberals talk, the corporations in America are not taxed at all (in GE's [the company in obama's back pocket] case this would be true). The only country with a coperate rate higher than ours (40%) is United Arab Emirates.

To hear some right wingers talk, you'd think they have a real aversion to something called facts. Where is the federal corporate tax rate 40%? Oh, you must be lumping in state and local tax rates to the "statutory minimum" federal rate of 35%. Yep, that's right, the federal tax rate is only 35%. And it only applies to businesses making over $18 million of taxable income. Income between $335,000 and $10 million is taxed at a flat rate of 34%. Income below the $335,000 threshold is taxed less.

It's certainly conceivable that if state and local taxes are added to the federal tax rate, a FEW corporations may pay in the neighborhood of 40%. But this is far from universally true-- if for no other reason that some state (and many municipalities) don't have corporate taxes at all.

Further, even if every state did have corporate tax to levy, still, the vast majority of corporations would pay nowhere near 40%. Those who know anything about business know that the effective tax rate (aka. the actual rate that a corporation ends up paying after factoring in deductions, credits, etc.) is 19%. Obviously, the distribution of deductions and credits is not even by business or industry-- under the current tax code, some corporations end up paying close to the federal "minimum" rate, others pay hardly any tax at all.

What does all this mean? That our tax code is definitely convoluted. But it also means that it's disingenuous to lay out a blanket percentage of tax rate as if it's fact that applies equally to all.

[TracyCoxx]

I do not think corporations pay enough taxes. Eliminate every one of the ridiculous loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes -- you know what I'm talking about -- and eliminate every ridiculous subsidy that gives our tax dollars to corporations that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, and perhaps I'll take a new look at the corporate tax rate. Until then, the argument is a bunch of crap, as I see it.
I think if you do that, whatever corporations that are still here in the US will scatter to the 4 corners of the globe and that will be it for our economy.

Kind of like what Steve Ballmer was talking about when tax increases were proposed in 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY

[smc]

I think if you do that, whatever corporations that are still here in the US will scatter to the 4 corners of the globe and that will be it for our economy.

Kind of like what Steve Ballmer was talking about when tax increases were proposed in 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY

Then we could start over and build an economy based on meeting human needs, not enriching a handful of individuals at the expense of people and the environment. Think it can't be done? We have the resources to do so; it just requires a mindset change. And before they leave, we could take back whatever they've stolen.

You're welcome to scatter along with the corporations, TracyCoxx.

[tslust]

The whole issue about raising corperate taxes or taxing the rich, is BS. The government needs to CUT SPENDING. As of early 2009 (the ecconomic situation has further deteriorated) if we had a total freeze on government spending and had a 100% Feeral tax, it would still take ten years to pay off the debt.

[smc]

The whole issue about raising corperate taxes or taxing the rich, is BS. The government needs to CUT SPENDING. As of early 2009 (the ecconomic situation has further deteriorated) if we had a total freeze on government spending and had a 100% Feeral tax, it would still take ten years to pay off the debt.

I'm all for cutting government spending. But I bet we won't agree on the cuts to make.

Let's get real about this deficit. The U.S. federal budget deficit today doesn't even come close to the percentage of the economy it was in, say, 1943, when it accounted for

30.3%. The Congressional Budget Office's most dire projection is that it will be 5.8% in fiscal 2014. This deficit business is a made-up catastrophe. Yes, it's large, but by no means insurmountable. When Reagan was president in 1983, the deficit was 6% of the economy, and by 1998 it had been turned into a surplus.

The call for drastic cuts are simply part of the strategy to shrink government, not the deficit. If deficit reduction was serious, the screamers of doom would be calling for cuts in the parts of the budget that are significant, and not stupid-ass stuff like the National Endowment for the Arts. But Romney, for instance, wants to increase the budget for the Pentagon -- the base budget for which has increased by nearly doubled in the last decade.

[tslust]

I'm all for cutting government spending. But I bet we won't agree on the cuts to make.

You might be surprised.

[TracyCoxx]

Then we could start over and build an economy based on meeting human needs, not enriching a handful of individuals at the expense of people and the environment. Think it can't be done? We have the resources to do so; it just requires a mindset change. And before they leave, we could take back whatever they've stolen.whatever that is... and they'll leave with all their patents. I know plenty of humans whose needs are met. If you're talking about meeting the needs of illegal aliens, I'm not interested. They're taking away resources from citizens of this country who need the resources while you've got the government actively trying to put people on food stamps who don't need them.

You're welcome to scatter along with the corporations, TracyCoxx.What was that for?

[smc]

You might be surprised.

I'd be interested in details. But with all due respect, tslust, it's difficult to take seriously in a political discussion anyone who identifies her or his location as "United Socialist States of America." And it's not because that's just silly, Tea Party-esque drivel, but because if you don't even really know what socialism is, or if you're going to pretend that the United States is socialist, how can we discuss politics?

[smc]

whatever that is... and they'll leave with all their patents. I know plenty of humans whose needs are met. If you're talking about meeting the needs of illegal aliens, I'm not interested. They're taking away resources from citizens of this country who need the resources while you've got the government actively trying to put people on food stamps who don't need them.

I didn't say a word about undocumented workers, but your attempt to change the subject (I know, you'll argue that I used the word "human" and so anything is game) is transparent.

But I have to hand it to you, TracyCoxx, you're relentless. I admire your willingness to go to the mat every single time with your provocative behavior. Sometimes I think the Internet was created for anonymous people like you who never have to face their audiences. As I've posted many times before, I believe with everything I'm made of that you would be used to mop the floor in a real debate. I refer readers to other posts for an explanation of why, lest I use the description that sends you off whining to the site owner.


What was that for?

Simply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s. Since I believe you love the corporations more than you love the average American, I am suggesting that you can scatter to one of the four corners of the globe (your words) when the corporations do the same.

[TracyCoxx]

Simply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s.Says the guy who wants to change the Constitution.

Since I believe you love the corporations more than you love the average American, I am suggesting that you can scatter to one of the four corners of the globe (your words) when the corporations do the same.What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy. Why am I worried about the economy? For the sake of corporations? No. For the average American. I know, why use simple logic when you can fire off a sarcastic one liner?

[smc]

Says the guy who wants to change the Constitution.

Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you. When the Supreme Court recently ruled on the Affordable Care Act, you decided that despite that the Court is the supreme governing body that is tasked with determining Constitutionality, and did it's job, the fact that you disagree means you get to choose what is constitutional. As I wrote then about you as a "friend" of the Constitution, "The sworn enemies of the United States would have better luck bringing down the nation by encouraging more of these types of friends than through conventional warfare."

What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy. Why am I worried about the economy? For the sake of corporations? No. For the average American. I know, why use simple logic when you can fire off a sarcastic one liner?

And I suggest that a different type of economy would be better for the average American. But why acknowledge that you knew I meant that, since I've been pretty explicit, when you can fire off another one of your provocative bullshit posts.

[St. Araqiel]

What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy.
What difference would it make, considering all the jobs they've moved overseas? If they leave entirely, then we can close all the loopholes and start over. If they're going to give all their job opportunities to foreigners and avoid paying all their taxes while everyone else gets punished for doing the same, then they're not welcome here. "Corporations are people, too?" Well, by that logic, there shouldn't be anything wrong with letting a Fortune 500 CEO run for and serve in public office while retaining his corporate job!

[TracyCoxx]

Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you. When the Supreme Court recently ruled on the Affordable Care Act, you decided that despite that the Court is the supreme governing body that is tasked with determining Constitutionality, and did it's job, the fact that you disagree means you get to choose what is constitutional.My criticisms of the court ruling were based entirely on what was in the Constitution.

And I suggest that a different type of economy would be better for the average American. But why acknowledge that you knew I meant that, since I've been pretty explicit, when you can fire off another one of your provocative bullshit posts.

You're saying that is what you meant when you saidSimply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s. Since I believe you love the corporations more than you love the average American, I am suggesting that you can scatter to one of the four corners of the globe (your words) when the corporations do the same.This doesn't suggest a different type of economy. This suggests that I leave the US.

[TracyCoxx]

What difference would it make, considering all the jobs they've moved overseas? If they leave entirely, then we can close all the loopholes and start over.
You don't have to wait until corporations leave to close a loophole.

If they're going to give all their job opportunities to foreigners and avoid paying all their taxes while everyone else gets punished for doing the same, then they're not welcome here. "Corporations are people, too?" Well, by that logic, there shouldn't be anything wrong with letting a Fortune 500 CEO run for and serve in public office while retaining his corporate job!Yeah, except for conflict of interest. You say things without any thought to consequences.

[GRH]

If corporations are people, it's time we start treating them like people. When laws are broken by corporations (or the agents of the corporation), I don't want to see this "settlement" bullshit that the FDA, SEC, FCC, etc. will engage in. I want the corporations taken to court, tried, and if convicted, I want their corporate charters revoked (or the stockholders can be wiped out and the corporate assets liquidated to the highest bidder).

I see this as a double standard. In terms of speech, corporations are viewed as "collections" of people...This collection of people is entitled to spend money and speak for the whole (regardless of whether the individual shareholders agree). But when this same collection of people breaks the law (even if it's individuals within the corporate entity), suddenly the "collective" mindset breaks down. The corporation isn't held accountable; instead, the individual agents acting on its behalf are held accountable (and only sometimes at that).

It's nothing original, but I love the statement: I'll start believing that corporations are people when Texas executes one.

[tslust]

I'd be interested in details. But with all due respect, tslust, it's difficult to take seriously in a political discussion anyone who identifies her or his location as "United Socialist States of America." And it's not because that's just silly, Tea Party-esque drivel, but because if you don't even really know what socialism is, or if you're going to pretend that the United States is socialist, how can we discuss politics?

socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

"Government ownership and administrationship" hmm, does that sound familiar (banks, mortgage firms, automobile companies, wall street, the medical industry, need I go on)?

Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you.

:lol: The unSupreme Court's decision on obamacare(if it's such a gerat system then why are they [government workers] and unions exempt?) was not Constitutional. That's not simply my opinion, that's what the document says. I ask youl where in the Constitution does it empower the Federal government to run health care? Where in the Constitution does it empower the unSupreme Court to change the wording of existing legislation?

One further question, if it is deemed Constitutional for the Federal government to "tax" people for not getting health insurance then what will be next? Will they "tax" anyone who fails to buy a new Chevy hybrid?

[smc]

socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

"Government ownership and administrationship" hmm, does that sound familiar (banks, mortgage firms, automobile companies, wall street, the medical industry, need I go on)?

You can post all the definitions you want, but your profile identifies your location as "Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America." So, prove with your definitions that we live in a "Socialist" country, where the preponderance of economic activity fits your definition. (And, by the way, it's ownership AND administration, not ownership OR administration.)

The argument that the United States is socialist is simply ridiculous. Every capitalist country in the world has some elements of the economy that have "socialistic" characteristics, but to say this is a socialist country is beyond asinine. I'm embarrassed even to be engaging in a discussion about something so patently idiotic, and you -- having proven yourself in post after post to have a level of seriousness and intelligence beyond such an idiocy -- ought to be embarrassed, too.



:lol: The unSupreme Court's decision on obamacare(if it's such a gerat system then why are they [government workers] and unions exempt?) was not Constitutional. That's not simply my opinion, that's what the document says. I ask youl where in the Constitution does it empower the Federal government to run health care? Where in the Constitution does it empower the unSupreme Court to change the wording of existing legislation?

One further question, if it is deemed Constitutional for the Federal government to "tax" people for not getting health insurance then what will be next? Will they "tax" anyone who fails to buy a new Chevy hybrid?

Like TracyCoxx, you simply post again and again that the ruling by the Supreme Court is wrong. You're both welcome to your opinion that the Court made a mistake, but over and again both of you reveal that you do not support the U.S. system of government -- because the Supreme Court gets to make its decisions whether you think the Constitution "empowers" it to do this or that. It is the final arbiter of what is Constitutional, not you, and not TracyCoxx. You either have to accept how it works as a system, or state without equivocation that you want to overthrow the Constitutional system established. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. Look that word up, like you did "socialist."

[tslust]

(And, by the way, it's ownership AND administration, not ownership OR administration.)

The argument that the United States is socialist is simply ridiculous. Every capitalist country in the world has some elements of the economy that have "socialistic" characteristics,

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I recognize that the concepts of capitalism, socialism, even communism and facism are abstract and therefore theoretical. You will not, and possibly perhaps should not, find these concepts applied in a purist form..

You must remember, as I've stated before, I am a very firm advocate of State's Rights. The ever-expanding Federal government makes me chafe (well that and starch in my thong;)). I abhore the burdensome "top down" model - I know that some may not see it as such - that is currently so pervasive throught DC. People and buisness would be better served with less centralized controll over their lives. I'm not saying there should be a total free-for-all where there's anarchy in the streets and the buisness or corporations are simply steamrolling anyone they want to. The Federal government needs to be rolled back to it's originally intended size.

(BTW, in case you forgot my questions?:kiss:)I ask youl where in the Constitution does it empower the Federal government to run health care? Where in the Constitution does it empower the unSupreme Court to change the wording of existing legislation?

One further question, if it is deemed Constitutional for the Federal government to "tax" people for not getting health insurance then what will be next? Will they "tax" anyone who fails to buy a new Chevy hybrid?

[smc]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I recognize that the concepts of capitalism, socialism, even communism and facism are abstract and therefore theoretical. You will not, and possibly perhaps should not, find these concepts applied in a purist form..

Rather than argue with you about the degree of abstractness in these concepts (I speculate that I don't think they are nearly as abstract as do you), I will instead pose a query: if the term "socialist" is abstract, why then do you apply it concretely to describe the United States? In addition: what is the point at which the United States economy, in its preponderance, switched from capitalist to socialist? I ask these questions in all seriousness, particularly the second of the two.

(BTW, in case you forgot my questions?:kiss:)

I am not trying to avoid your questions. I thought I answered the first and second ones several times, even if not directly. My answer is that I do not know where in the Constitution the federal government is empowered to run health care. I am not a Constitutional scholar. More important, though, is that the U.S. Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make that determination. And it empowers the Court, through its rulings, to address the wording of legislation in whatever way the Court ITSELF deems to be Constitutional. You continue to disagree with the Constitutional authority given to the Court to do so, and then when challenged on that point you simply ignore it. By calling it the unSupreme Court, you disrespect the very system you claim to support.

I would also argue that the Affordable Care Act does now empower the government to RUN health care, by any definition of RUN.

As for your third and fourth question: I don't know what will be next, since I don't accept the terms of your description of what the Court ruled. As for your question about hybrid cars, I will answer by turning the question around. When will the Court rule that it is unconstitutional for the government to give my tax dollars to subsidize oil companies and use its power to keep gasoline prices artificially low so as to encourage the continued use of unsustainable fuels and the automobiles that burn those fuels?

[tslust]

I will instead pose a query: if the term "socialist" is abstract, why then do you apply it concretely to describe the United States? In addition: what is the point at which the United States economy, in its preponderance, switched from capitalist to socialist? I ask these questions in all seriousness, particularly the second of the two.

I have long felt that the Federal government has taken far too much power unto itself. It has been a steady weathering away of State's Rights and personal liberties for many years. But I'll admit that obamacare, where some blowhard a thousand miles away is demanding that I buy a service otherwise they'll penalize or rather tax me, has kinda pushed me over the edge. If I had a black toga, I'd be wearing it.

In my opinion the big shift from a capitalist based system toward a socialist one came with the rise of the unions and during the Great Depression. Granted, at the time, unions were necessary and there are even some places where they could do some good. I'm not saying to wipe out all unions, just the national and international affiliations. The Great Depression had several causes, and some viewed it as "the failure of capitalism". It was at that point that the Federal government began to introduce some national social programs. Also it saw Congress surrender monitary controll to the Federal Reserve Bank.

I am not trying to avoid your questions. I thought I answered the first and second ones several times, even if not directly. My answer is that I do not know where in the Constitution the federal government is empowered to run health care. I am not a Constitutional scholar. More important, though, is that the U.S. Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make that determination. And it empowers the Court, through its rulings, to address the wording of legislation in whatever way the Court ITSELF deems to be Constitutional. You continue to disagree with the Constitutional authority given to the Court to do so, and then when challenged on that point you simply ignore it. By calling it the unSupreme Court, you disrespect the very system you claim to support.

There is no Constitutional basis for the Federal government to take controll of health care. In Articles One and Two, there is a clear list of what powers the Federal government is to have. In the Tenth Ammendment it says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." therefore according to the Constitution, health care is not the domain of the Federal government.

You seem to have a very broad definition of the Third Article. Honestly, judical review is not listed as one of the unSupreme Court (If you are offended by this, then I'm sorry. But why didn't I ever see your distain towards some of the more left leaning members who use the same term to disparage Bush and conservatives?) powers. I can see where that has been interprited as part of their powers, however it is not listed in the Constitution. They most certainly do not have the Constitutional authority to rewrite legislation. For argument's sake, if the unelected nine were to rule that all Americans must purchase only 2% milk, what would you do?

When will the Court rule that it is unconstitutional for the government to give my tax dollars to subsidize oil companies and use its power to keep gasoline prices artificially low so as to encourage the continued use of unsustainable fuels and the automobiles that burn those fuels?

The honest answer, about two days after hell freezes over.:lol:

I believe that most subsidizes can be done away with. My question is why do we continue to purchase oil from the Saudis when there are plenty of other sources? It would be a good idea to provide meaningful investments into researching alternative fuels.

[TracyCoxx]

I'm embarrassed even to be engaging in a discussion about something so patently idioticThen don't. What? Do you need a 12 step program to stop?

Like TracyCoxx, you simply post again and again that the ruling by the Supreme Court is wrong. You're both welcome to your opinion that the Court made a mistake, but over and again both of you reveal that you do not support the U.S. system of government -- because the Supreme Court gets to make its decisions whether you think the Constitution "empowers" it to do this or that.We are asking legitimate questions. Questions that you apparently don't know the answer too other than "because the Supreme Court said so". If you don't know an answer, it's ok not to answer the question.

It is the final arbiter of what is Constitutional, not you, and not TracyCoxx. You either have to accept how it works as a systemWe do accept the system. The system is that the supreme court makes rulings based on the constitution. I do not see that they have in this case.

[smc]

I have long felt that the Federal government has taken far too much power unto itself. It has been a steady weathering away of State's Rights and personal liberties for many years. But I'll admit that obamacare, where some blowhard a thousand miles away is demanding that I buy a service otherwise they'll penalize or rather tax me, has kinda pushed me over the edge. If I had a black toga, I'd be wearing it.

In my opinion the big shift from a capitalist based system toward a socialist one came with the rise of the unions and during the Great Depression. Granted, at the time, unions were necessary and there are even some places where they could do some good. I'm not saying to wipe out all unions, just the national and international affiliations. The Great Depression had several causes, and some viewed it as "the failure of capitalism". It was at that point that the Federal government began to introduce some national social programs. Also it saw Congress surrender monitary controll to the Federal Reserve Bank.

First, thank you for a thoughtful post in response. TracyCoxx could take some lessons from you. By the way, are you aware that TracyCoxx speaks for you in the post just above mine? I'm wondering whether that is with your specific permission.

To your post, tslust ...

Words matter, and despite your much appreciated answer to the question I posed you still use the term socialism to describe something that isn’t even remotely socialist. You described the term “socialist” as abstract in an earlier post. Do I understand correctly that, in the concrete, you reserve the right to describe as socialist an entire country regardless of how much “socialism” (i.e., national government “intervention” in economic affairs might exist)? If so, than is every capitalist country in the world actually a socialist country? Do you advocate zero government intervention in the economy? And, by extension, do you think that all things that are created for public use should be built by the private sector? How would you reconcile the public use with the private desire to make these things inaccessible or charge fees for their use? And what about regulation? Isn’t regulation of economic activity socialism? Should there be completely unfettered capitalism?

These are serious questions, even if the cartoon below is tongue-in-cheek.



There is no Constitutional basis for the Federal government to take controll of health care. In Articles One and Two, there is a clear list of what powers the Federal government is to have. In the Tenth Ammendment it says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." therefore according to the Constitution, health care is not the domain of the Federal government.

You seem to have a very broad definition of the Third Article. Honestly, judical review is not listed as one of the unSupreme Court (If you are offended by this, then I'm sorry. But why didn't I ever see your distain towards some of the more left leaning members who use the same term to disparage Bush and conservatives?) powers. I can see where that has been interprited as part of their powers, however it is not listed in the Constitution. They most certainly do not have the Constitutional authority to rewrite legislation. For argument's sake, if the unelected nine were to rule that all Americans must purchase only 2% milk, what would you do?

I don’t remember anyone calling Bush “unSupreme,” but your point is taken. If it makes you feel better to use the term “unSupreme,” go ahead. Using such words does nothing to bolster an argument, and only makes arguments look rather childish ... in my opinion.

To the point regarding “constitutionality,” though, I guess I'll try one last time to make my point, which at this stage of the discussion I must admit I think is being deliberately ignored. My point (and you will either respond or not): the Supreme Court is, in essence, given the power to determine its own powers. Yes, you can quote the Constitution, but our system is set up in a way that thwarts the literal interpretation of the Constitution in that the Court itself can rule that it has powers. My point all along has been that this is how it works, and you either support the system or you don’t. The Court has ruled many times in ways that seem to go against what the Constitution, taking its words literally, might mean. Most scholars of the U.S. Constitution use the word “beauty” to describe how the Founding Fathers made it so “wise” men and women would use their judgment.

Do they get it wrong? Sure, often. They ruled that Blacks were less than whole persons, for instance.

Look, I don’t like the Affordable Care Act. I have quoted Lawrence O’Donnell, in agreement, calling it the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act. But you know, tslust, that anything not strictly stated in the Constitution is open to Court interpretation. You can say you disagree when the Court does this and agree when the Court does that, in fulfilling its interpretative mandate, but if you support the system than you have to agree that sometimes you’ll agree and sometimes you’ll disagree with the Court’s decision. The Court’s interpretative mandate to DECIDE is constitutional. Again, that has been my point all along.

As for your “argument’s sake” question, I won’t answer for a very simple reason. It belittles the argument to compare healthcare and 2% milk, on so many levels. It does not cost society anything based on my decision of which kind of milk to purchase. I pay when the guy next door doesn’t have health insurance. That alone makes your analogy ridiculous. Ask something of substance if you want to have this debate.

By the way, do you now advocate electing the justices of the Supreme Court? That is the implication of how your 2% milk question is initially posed.


The honest answer, about two days after hell freezes over.:lol:

I believe that most subsidizes can be done away with. My question is why do we continue to purchase oil from the Saudis when there are plenty of other sources? It would be a good idea to provide meaningful investments into researching alternative fuels.

Well, I'm glad to read that, but do you believe that most subsidies SHOULD be done away with? That’s the far more important question.

Finally, "provide meaningful investments" by ... the government?! My god, wouldn't that be socialism?!

[smc]

Then don't. What? Do you need a 12 step program to stop?

Your wittiness is rivaled only by your sophistry.

We are asking legitimate questions. Questions that you apparently don't know the answer too other than "because the Supreme Court said so". If you don't know an answer, it's ok not to answer the question.

I know you like to put words in people's mouth, but I've made my point again and again, including in my response just above to tslust. I also know that you like to ignore what people actually write when it doesn't suit your purposes. So have your fun. As we both know from the Internet, people get off on all sorts of weird things.

We do accept the system. The system is that the supreme court makes rulings based on the constitution. I do not see that they have in this case.

Again, my point is made in the response to tslust above. Apparently, you now speak for tslust. I would think tslust, who actually takes this stuff seriously, would not want to give that kind of carte blanche to someone who doesn't, but the Web is a place of infinite surprise.

[TracyCoxx]

First, thank you for a thoughtful post in response. TracyCoxx could take some lessons from you.Show me how it's done smc. Respond to my post in Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape that's been sitting there unanswered by you for 2 weeks. No scratch that. You've demonstrated before that you are unable to answer with a thoughtful response. Preferring to use responses such as "boo-fucking-hoo". Why don't you start leading by example.

By the way, are you aware that TracyCoxx speaks for you in the post just above mine? I'm wondering whether that is with your specific permission.
Let's see.... how does that go now? Oh yes...
NOTICE ABOVE that [smc] once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who [smc] doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations.I never realized that you sought permission to answer for all the hundreds of people you've answered for when I addressed them. I am impressed!

I know you like to put words in people's mouth, but I've made my point again and again, including in my response just above to tslust. I also know that you like to ignore what people actually write when it doesn't suit your purposes. So have your fun. As we both know from the Internet, people get off on all sorts of weird things.You may have looked at my post, but you didn't read it. Seriously... it's ok not to answer if you do not know the answer. Or if you must answer, a simple "I don't know" will suffice.

[smc]

Show me how it's done smc. Respond to my post in Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape that's been sitting there unanswered by you for 2 weeks. No scratch that. You've demonstrated before that you are unable to answer with a thoughtful response. Preferring to use responses such as "boo-fucking-hoo". Why don't you start leading by example.

You can ignore what I write until the cows come home, and cast aspersions, and try to paint me as having deliberately ignored a post in another thread, but you're the troll and not me.

Your post in the other thread will be answered when I'm done writing this post. I don't remember seeing it, which is probably why I didn't answer. Unlike some people, I masturbate to pictures online, not just things I myself have written, so I might have been busy.

(Yes, go whine to the site owner that I insulted you. I have decided to do you a solid by giving you as many direct opportunities to whine to the site owner as possible, so you don't have to spend time writing compelling arguments about how something that wasn't really an insult actually is.)


Let's see.... how does that go now? Oh yes...
I never realized that you sought permission to answer for all the hundreds of people you've answered for when I addressed them. I am impressed!]

A time-honored trick: throw that which you are accused of back at the accuser, rather than deal with the substance. The differences will be clear to anyone who has the time to look at the full, complete record of your posts and mine, in toto, but I doubt anyone will do so. It's not worth the trouble.

You may have looked at my post, but you didn't read it. Seriously... it's ok not to answer if you do not know the answer. Or if you must answer, a simple "I don't know" will suffice.

Wow, you're so clever, trying to make it look like I don't know something, or that I'm refusing to answer your questions. But the reality is that I did answer. I have written that unlike you, I don't pretend to be a Constitutional scholar. I have written that I accept the Supreme Court's decision because they get to make it. I think the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. I also happen not to like the Affordable Care Act, as I've also written. I think we should have single-payer healthcare, Medicare for all.

Now, I'm going to the other thread to deal with that post that you are implying I deliberately ignored ... despite that you have no proof. I could point out all the things, again, that you've never actually answered, but I have other things to do after logging off. For instance, I'm going to search for a manual that explains how to be the best possible troll, because you're slipping. I'll send you the link.

[smc]

NOTICE ABOVE that [smc] once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who [smc] doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations.


I never realized that you sought permission to answer for all the hundreds of people you've answered for when I addressed them. I am impressed!

Oh, I forgot that I wanted to address this quote more directly.

Hundreds? Seriously? More important, though, I defy you to find a single post of mine where I reserve the right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum. Find one. I dare you.

I, on the other hand, can find many posts of yours where you have complained that I intervened in, or interrupted, or had the nerve to participate in, an open thread -- open meaning anyone can participate.

So, in the tradition of TracyCoxx, I want an apology for attributing to me something that I have never done. ... Not really -- I don't want an apology. Because an apology from you would be meaningless. An apology from someone who serially makes up stuff like what I quote above is meaningless.

[tslust]

Do you advocate zero government intervention in the economy? And, by extension, do you think that all things that are created for public use should be built by the private sector? How would you reconcile the public use with the private desire to make these things inaccessible or charge fees for their use? And what about regulation? Isn’t regulation of economic activity socialism? Should there be completely unfettered capitalism?
I believe that the buisness should, for the most part, be allowed to function on their own. I don't think there should be zero government intervention, some regulation is good for the consumers. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about with the public use and private sector production. I don't believe it would be possible to impliment "pure" capitalism. As for government meddling into buisness, I believe that so long as the general public isn't put in danger by a buisness' practiecs (either through health concerns or lack of ecconomic incentives reasulting in degradation of services, ie monopolies) the government shouldn't get involved.

As for your “argument’s sake” question, I won’t answer for a very simple reason. It belittles the argument to compare healthcare and 2% milk, on so many levels. It does not cost society anything based on my decision of which kind of milk to purchase. I pay when the guy next door doesn’t have health insurance. That alone makes your analogy ridiculous. Ask something of substance if you want to have this debate.

By the way, do you now advocate electing the justices of the Supreme Court?


It's not that I don't understand your position. The fact is that the Court upheald the idea that the Federal government has the authority to demand that the citizens must purchase a product. And that is blatantly against the Constitution. I suppose that one could argue that the individual mandate/tax is in effect a Bill of Attainder and therefore void. The 2% analogy stems from the question of how much further will the Federal government go. What will they demand that we buy next?

I have no problem with the selection process of Judical nominees. However I would like to see them made more accountable to the people. It's interesting to note that in Article Three, Section I, it says: "...The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,..." Does that mean the Constitution gives us a way to get rid of judges that we see as bad? IMHO If enough people sign a petition (like about 40%) saying that Ruberts is a bad justice and is not doing his job; then the question of whether he should be retained or not as a justice would be put on the ballot of the next National election. If 51% vote him out, then he has to go.

Finally, "provide meaningful investments" by ... the government?! My god, wouldn't that be socialism?!

It is in the Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science..." That being said, there's too much waste and too much money being poured down holes with nothing to show for it. That's why I said meaningful investments.

[St. Araqiel]

If corporations are people, it's time we start treating them like people. When laws are broken by corporations (or the agents of the corporation), I don't want to see this "settlement" bullshit that the FDA, SEC, FCC, etc. will engage in. I want the corporations taken to court, tried, and if convicted, I want their corporate charters revoked (or the stockholders can be wiped out and the corporate assets liquidated to the highest bidder).

I see this as a double standard. In terms of speech, corporations are viewed as "collections" of people...This collection of people is entitled to spend money and speak for the whole (regardless of whether the individual shareholders agree). But when this same collection of people breaks the law (even if it's individuals within the corporate entity), suddenly the "collective" mindset breaks down. The corporation isn't held accountable; instead, the individual agents acting on its behalf are held accountable (and only sometimes at that).

It's nothing original, but I love the statement: I'll start believing that corporations are people when Texas executes one.
Hear, hear! :respect: