Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Your method, though, is -- as always -- bankrupt, lying, and reprehensible.

Your obligatory uncalled for whining is noted. Next time just make an acronym of this and put it in your sig.

Originally Posted by smc

we subsidize the wealthiest Americans and their corporations, whether directly or indirectly.

This can be done largely with a flat tax. Then we can get rid of the IRS. There's a huge chunk of change saved.

Originally Posted by smc

I would cut every subsidy to the oil companies and other mega-corporations. I would eliminate the tax loopholes that make the United States have the most regressive taxation in the industrialized world and that make the United States have the largest income disparity in the developed or developing world, including China.

Deja vu. Again, flat tax.

Originally Posted by smc

I would cut the so-called "defense budget" by nearly everything,

This would be irresponsible.

Originally Posted by smc

- nearly $110 billion could be cut from the 2015 defense budget without taking as radical a step as I propose above; this would include savings through efficiency measures, reducing troop levels, eliminating unneeded weapons systems, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military. To this I would add an immediate, 100% withdrawal from Afghanistan.

That's better...

Originally Posted by smc

- eliminate 100% of tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas, which would increase revenue by more than $132 billion.

Absolutely. And let's stop paying to get Brazil set up to do offshore oil drilling. That's a subsidy not for American companies that employ others oversees, but foreign companies employing people overseas... WTF?!!!

Originally Posted by smc

Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problem

recognizes the huge amount of waste already in our government.

Originally Posted by smc

- eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the top two tax brackets and return to 2009 estate tax levels

Even Obama recognized how harmful that would be to our economy.

Originally Posted by smc

This is a start. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world,

For about 5 more years. Then it will be China.

Originally Posted by smc

but its wealth is concentrated in an unsustainable way that will provoke social unrest and class warfare as time goes on. History is clear. We can either have an equitable nation, or we can have a nation that kowtows to the interests of a wealthy few. That is the nation Tracy Coxx wants, assumedly because Tracy Coxx

...knows that American corporations and small businesses drive the economy. And if you raise taxes too much on these corporations they will move over seas and drive someone else's economy.

Originally Posted by GRH

I like that you put the word "entitlement" in quotation marks. This is such a politically charged word. Funny how things like basic income and health care for senior citizens is considered an "entitlement"-- despite the fact that these citizens have paid into the system for their benefits.

No, it is by definition:
* a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
* belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Originally Posted by GRH

However, things like corporate tax loopholes and tax cuts are not called "entitlements." Funny, anytime there's a mention of taking these things away, there is such moaning and gnashing of teeth that you'd think the recipients of these give-aways feel "entitled" to them.

Also by definition. Fine go ahead and call those entitlements.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That quote is morbidly heartening. I never thought such a thing would be written in an American newspaper.

It wasn't. It was from the Los Angeles Times

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

I fail to see what the GOP is bitching about
Every time they have made deals with this president they gave up nothing and walked away with just about everything they wanted
Like the extension of the Bush taxcuts
And yet agian today he is putting everything on the table and the GOP are taking and not giving
Cuts to medicare social security making the poor and elderly suffer and pay all the defecit while tax breaks for the top two percent and corpate welfare conitues untouched and may be increased
I wish i saved my nuts so i could give em to the president as he really needs a set
Jerseygirl Jen

LMAO! When Jen is this upset about Obama that can only mean good news for the US.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Your obligatory uncalled for whining is noted. Next time just make an acronym of this and put it in your sig.

Just because you pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, or that everyone else doesn't know, doesn't make the fact disappear.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This can be done largely with a flat tax. Then we can get rid of the IRS. There's a huge chunk of change saved.

Deja vu. Again, flat tax.

The flat tax is regressive. That's why so many wealthy people and their think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation support it. A lowly service worker needs a greater percentage of her income to survive than does a wealthy "captain of industry" or me, or, I suspect, Tracy Coxx. Why shouldn't we pay a higher percentage? What good does it do our country to have a regressive tax?

Of course, if you are a person who hasn't a thread of social solidarity in her or his bones, it makes perfect sense to call for regressive taxation on income. Tracy Coxx, is that where you stand?
There is absolutely no reason why taxes should not be higher the more money you make.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This would be irresponsible.

That's better...

I'm for eliminating the entire "offense" budget, as I made clear. Why do you support keeping any of the "offense" budget, Tracy Coxx?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Absolutely. And let's stop paying to get Brazil set up to do offshore oil drilling. That's a subsidy not for American companies that employ others oversees, but foreign companies employing people overseas... WTF?!!!

I hope that you will state without equivocation -- that is, without raising an ancillary issue -- your support for a 100% elimination of the subsidies I mentioned to which your response above corresponds.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

recognizes the huge amount of waste already in our government.

Note to all readers: the quote above is the Tracy Coxx "ending" to the following statement of mine: "Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problem ..." It is not a substantive response to the point I made, and answers nothing.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Even Obama recognized how harmful that would be to our economy.

You know that's bullshit, and yet you post it anyway. It was a horrible compromise made by a president who is largely spineless. But he made clear he did not think it was a good idea. We understand you don't like him; you've called him names. And now we see again that you cannot conduct a debate based in honesty.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

...knows that American corporations and small businesses drive the economy. And if you raise taxes too much on these corporations they will move over seas and drive someone else's economy.

Note that the above quote is Tracy Coxx's ending to the following that I wrote: "The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, but its wealth is concentrated in an unsustainable way that will provoke social unrest and class warfare as time goes on. History is clear. We can either have an equitable nation, or we can have a nation that kowtows to the interests of a wealthy few. That is the nation Tracy Coxx wants, assumedly because Tracy Coxx ..."

Where are these engines of the economy right now, Tracy Coxx? Corporations reap profits and hoard their moneys. The financial institutions take bailout money and make little credit available. "Drive the economy"? You are correct. They are driving it into the ground, because the profit motive -- which has nothing to do with job creation per se -- trumps any interest in what's good for society. And that means it trumps any interest in what's good for you.

Notably, you said nothing about my main point about sustainability, equitability, and social unrest.

As for the "entitlement" discussion, I have no doubt that GRH is more than capable of responding. I will simply note that your argument "by definition" is about a definition given the word for political purposes. It is a charged word meant to connote a negative. You are smart enough to know this, so why do you adopt the posture of a Sophist to make your argument. Surely you are capable of arguing the point on the merits, rather than using a trick to avoid that argument.

How I wish, every time I read your posts, that you were available for my rhetoric class. I wouldn't have to give my students printouts for reading. I could just have you verbalize that which you write on this forum, and save some trees from having to give their lives to become paper.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

LMAO! When Jen is this upset about Obama that can only mean good news for the US.

I guess by good news you mean the top two percent won't have to suffer or even help in ending the deficet created by W with his trickle down policies of cutting taxes for the rich and the trillion spent in the war he started with his lies and we now have to rebulid Iraq wasting a trillion dollars

As much as you and the GOP whine about everyone bashing W , it was W that created the mess we are in his tax cuts for the rich and his unfonded wars created this deficet
So where are the jobs made by trickle down? it's been ten years so where are the jobs?
W and his GOP flunkies made this miss and they are still insisting on keeping his failed plans alive
This is W's mess and blaming Obama won't change the truth

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

... As much as you and the GOP whine about everyone bashing W , it was W that created the mess we are in his tax cuts for the rich and his unfonded wars created this deficet
So where are the jobs made by trickle down? it's been ten years so where are the jobs?
W and his GOP flunkies made this miss and they are still insisting on keeping his failed plans alive
This is W's mess and blaming Obama won't change the truth

Yes, Jen, absolutely. They "bought" a war on credit, and now -- when it comes time to pay -- they want to pretend that the problem is everything but what they did.

It's like taking out a car loan to buy a new automobile, not making the payments, and then going to the local bank that gave you the money and insisting that they lay off some of their tellers to make up for the shortfall in revenue caused by your default.

The teller reference is especially for you, Jen. And thanks for using the word "whine".

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The flat tax is regressive. That's why so many wealthy people and their think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation support it. A lowly service worker needs a greater percentage of her income to survive than does a wealthy "captain of industry" or me, or, I suspect, Tracy Coxx. Why shouldn't we pay a higher percentage? What good does it do our country to have a regressive tax?

Flat tax is flat tax, and regressive tax is regressive tax. Our present tax code is social engineering run amok. The government should not get into the business of deciding who should have a bigger burden. Flat tax removes that and taxes everyone an equal percentage.

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, if you are a person who hasn't a thread of social solidarity in her or his bones, it makes perfect sense to call for regressive taxation on income. Tracy Coxx, is that where you stand?

No. I support flat tax remember?

Originally Posted by smc

There is absolutely no reason why taxes should not be higher the more money you make.

It should not be the burden of 10% of the country to fund 68% of the government.

Originally Posted by smc

I'm for eliminating the entire "offense" budget, as I made clear. Why do you support keeping any of the "offense" budget, Tracy Coxx?

In case the need to defend ourselves arises.

Originally Posted by smc

I hope that you will state without equivocation -- that is, without raising an ancillary issue -- your support for a 100% elimination of the subsidies I mentioned to which your response above corresponds.

I will stop raising ancillary issues when responding to you if you will do the same with me. But yes, I support the elimination of 100% of subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas - with one exception: If US laws prohibit a company from doing work within our own borders, and that company's products are of value to the US, then it's only fair for that company to be subsidized to cover the additional expense of doing business elsewhere.

Originally Posted by smc

It was a horrible compromise made by a president who is largely spineless. But he made clear he did not think it was a good idea.

With a democrat controlled House and Senate, why did a democrat president compromise and do something he didn't think was a good idea?

Originally Posted by smc

The financial institutions take bailout money and make little credit available.

Well they can do that when they also run the treasury.

Originally Posted by smc

Notably, you said nothing about my main point about sustainability, equitability, and social unrest.

If you want the wealthiest 10% of the country to pay for the operation of the country, don't be surprised when they want to call the shots. And it's not sustainable. It will last until over 50% of the country realizes they can vote themselves a share of the treasury.

Originally Posted by smc

As for the "entitlement" discussion, I have no doubt that GRH is more than capable of responding.

Yeah, she's pretty good about that.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

I guess by good news you mean the top two percent won't have to suffer or even help in ending the deficet created by W with his trickle down policies of cutting taxes for the rich and the trillion spent in the war he started with his lies and we now have to rebulid Iraq wasting a trillion dollars

If only you had some concept of Bush's deficit spending vs Obama's deficit spending. We've been down that road many times though.

Originally Posted by transjen

it was W that created the mess we are in his tax cuts for the rich and his unfonded wars created this deficet

.What unfondled wars? I thought congress funded them. You mean Bush got away with funding wars without congressional support past the 90 days he's allowed? THAT IS AN OUTRAGE - if only it were true.

Originally Posted by transjen

So where are the jobs made by trickle down? it's been ten years so where are the jobs?

What was the unemployment rate during Bush's terms? Where are the jobs that BO's stimulus packages were supposed to create? Like BO says, they weren't as shovel ready as he thought.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Flat tax is flat tax, and regressive tax is regressive tax. Our present tax code is social engineering run amok. The government should not get into the business of deciding who should have a bigger burden. Flat tax removes that and taxes everyone an equal percentage.

No. I support flat tax remember? ...

In case the need to defend ourselves arises. ...

With a democrat controlled House and Senate, why did a democrat president compromise and do something he didn't think was a good idea? ...

1. The flat tax is regressive. You can pretend it is not, but any tax that treats a billionaire and someone who is paid minimum wage the same is "tending to return or revert" us to social barbarism. I don't care that economists call it something else. There's a reason it's supported by the billionaires and their mouthpieces.

2. You dodged the question about the defense budget by ignoring its main point.

3. Oh, and a Republican president never did anything he didn't fully agree with? Give me a fuckin' break.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

1. The flat tax is regressive. You can pretend it is not, but any tax that treats a billionaire and someone who is paid minimum wage the same is "tending to return or revert" us to social barbarism. I don't care that economists call it something else. There's a reason it's supported by the billionaires and their mouthpieces.

I see a pattern with you. You take offense when someone uses a word as it's defined because they should know what is really meant. As an engineer, I find it's less confusing if everyone says what they mean with words that mean what they say.

Originally Posted by smc

2. You dodged the question about the defense budget by ignoring its main point.

No, I answered your question. You asked about MY reason to support, and as usual, criticized it because it's not what you want to hear.

Originally Posted by smc

3. Oh, and a Republican president never did anything he didn't fully agree with? Give me a fuckin' break.

Sure they have. When they had to compromise with Congress. That wasn't the case with Obama. A republican president has also done things they didn't agree with, despite the ability to do what they really wanted to do, because they knew what was really best for the country. Obama made a rare mature selfless decision when he continued the Bush tax cuts for the good of the country.

If you're claiming that my statement that Obama realized that raising taxes is bad for the economy is a lie then I think people here can see how hollow your accusations are, no matter how often you repeat them.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I see a pattern with you. You take offense when someone uses a word as it's defined because they should know what is really meant. As an engineer, I find it's less confusing if everyone says what they mean with words that mean what they say.

What bullshit. I didn't take offense. I challenge you to show how the flat tax does anything for people at the lower end of the income spectrum to create greater fairness and equality across the spectrum, not just a benefit for the wealthiest. If you can do so, I'll retract my statement that it is regressive.

Regressive is an adjective with a general meaning and a specific meaning it has been given by economists with respect to taxation. In that latter meaning, it is a technical term. As an engineer, you should know that the ways in which technical adjectives are used are not necessarily commensurate with the dictionary definitions for their general use.

[GRH]

I don't have time for a long thoughtful reply...But Tracy seems concerned with the "progressive" nature of our taxation system. As if there is a problem that the top 10% shoulder a larger share of funding the government. Well hello...It's because the top 10% own 80% of the nation's wealth. The wealthy were allowed to benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure that America provides (legal, education, structural, etc.), so it should be expected that they pay a higher share of the tax burden. How so? Well the link below goes into a bit more detail, but it gives the example of Bill Gates from Microsoft. How did he disproportionately benefit from America's infrastructure? For one, he was able to sell stock on regulated financial exchanges. He was able to patent his product and pursue litigation in cases of infringement. He was able to hire college educated students (who went to public universities, had student loans/grants, etc.). Do you think Bill Gates would have been able to innovate and come up with Microsoft if he had lived in some third world country without America's infrastructure?

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/in...eater_tax_debt

And even the most ardent supporters of a "flat tax" have admitted the need for some sort of subsidy/credit for the low income earningers-- because this IS a regressive tax. So in the end, it's not even a flat tax. But just out of curiosity Tracy, I've always heard that the tax should be levied on essentially all purchases. Would you support levying the "flat tax" on purchases of stock and securities? Because if we're going to be fair, we've got to apply the tax to EVERYTHING that is purchased (including the trading vehicles of the wealthy).

[randolph]

Although the "flat tax" is deemed regressive, in actual practice is it really? The wealthy have many ways of minimizing or eliminating their taxes that are unavailable to the lower incomes. I suspect a flat tax would vastly simplify the tax system and provide more income for the government. Everybody should support the government.
Eliminating the sales tax, which hurts low income people, would stimulate the economy and compensate somewhat for the flat income tax.
Yeah, I know, there are plenty of arguments against this.

[GRH]

There's another thing that a LOT of people seem to have a misconception about regarding our "progressive" tax system. Some people seem to be under the impression that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of tax on ALL of their earnings and this is simply not the case. The fact is, everyone's first dollar's of earnings are taxed exactly the same as everyone else's. Up until the first marginal tax bracket, EVERYONE (wealthy and poor alike) are taxed at 10%. Then going up to the next income tax bracket, the earnings between the first and third tax bracket are taxed at 15%.

I think the right like to play a sympathy game as if the "poor", overtaxed wealthy of this country pay 35% on ALL of their earnings. The fact is, for a couple filing jointly, those 35% tax rates don't kick in except on earnings in excess of $250,000. The earnings up to that threshhold are taxed at lower rates. The wealthy would like you to believe that if they make $251,000 a year that they pay $87,850 in taxes (taxing ALL earnings at 35%). The fact is, only the $1,000 (in excess of the $250,000) is taxed at 35%.

And of course, this doesn't even begin to take into account all the deductions and favored tax rates. Yes, some people end up paying no income taxes at all thanks to all the credits and deductions available. And let's not forget that capital gains and dividends are taxed at only 15%...A major source of income for the wealthy. As a result, the EFFECTIVE tax rate that America's wealthiest pay (on total income) is in many cases lower than the income taxes paid by some of our middle class Americans.

[transjen]

I hate to burst everyones bubble but there is really no such thing as a fair tax system cause no matter the system there will be special loopholes favoring one group over everyone else inserted in or added later
Also keep in mind that no matter how many times the GOP scream about the tax and spend DEMS let us not forget that the GOP spend tax dollars just as quick the only difference is they feel the upper two percent shouldn't have to pay taxes only the poor and lower middle class should pay all the taxes
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

So anyway...

Originally Posted by GRH

Tracy seems concerned with the "progressive" nature of our taxation system. As if there is a problem that the top 10% shoulder a larger share of funding the government.

I don't have a problem with that exactly. If there was a flat tax at 17%, someone who makes $100 million/yr would have a $17 million tax bill. If someone made $10000/yr then they would have a $1700 tax bill. The richer person still shoulders a much larger share of funding the government.

Originally Posted by GRH

The wealthy were allowed to benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure that America provides (legal, education, structural, etc.), so it should be expected that they pay a higher share of the tax burden. How so? Well the link below goes into a bit more detail, but it gives the example of Bill Gates from Microsoft. How did he disproportionately benefit from America's infrastructure? For one, he was able to sell stock on regulated financial exchanges. He was able to patent his product and pursue litigation in cases of infringement. He was able to hire college educated students (who went to public universities, had student loans/grants, etc.). Do you think Bill Gates would have been able to innovate and come up with Microsoft if he had lived in some third world country without America's infrastructure?

This has nothing to do with some 3rd world country. This is about how the rich vs poor in America are taxed.

Originally Posted by GRH

And even the most ardent supporters of a "flat tax" have admitted the need for some sort of subsidy/credit for the low income earningers-- because this IS a regressive tax. So in the end, it's not even a flat tax.

LOL awesome. You are actually claiming that flat tax is not flat tax. You have violated perhaps the most fundamental axiom: the reflexive axiom and claimed that A is not A. If you're going to call flat tax regressive tax, then what to you call something that is truly by definition regressive tax? The classic trademark of liberals is to water down words with alternate meanings. You and your Kinetic Military Actions, Man Caused Disasters and Deferred Successes.

Originally Posted by GRH

But just out of curiosity Tracy, I've always heard that the tax should be levied on essentially all purchases. Would you support levying the "flat tax" on purchases of stock and securities? Because if we're going to be fair, we've got to apply the tax to EVERYTHING that is purchased (including the trading vehicles of the wealthy).

I'm no expert on economics, but that's referred to as "Fair Tax", and as you say another example of a flat tax system. There's many advantages to it, like allowing people to keep all their income, promoting savings, being able to tax even illegal aliens, and again, the elimination of the IRS.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Also keep in mind that no matter how many times the GOP scream about the tax and spend DEMS let us not forget that the GOP spend tax dollars just as quick

Are you talking about GOP administrations with or without democrat congresses? And are you comparing them to democrat administrations with or without GOP congresses?

[TracyCoxx]

From Congressman Joe Walsh to Obama: Quit Lying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVPuW...layer_embedded

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

From Congressman Joe Walsh to Obama: Quit Lying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVPuW...layer_embedded

This is the ideal example of the kind of worthless, bankrupt, adolescent bullshit that substitutes for genuine discourse in the minds of many of the so-called Tea Party members of Congress and, unfortunately, at least one regular poster on this Forum.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

This is the ideal example of the kind of worthless, bankrupt, adolescent bullshit that substitutes for genuine discourse .).

(yada,yada, yada, etc. etc

This is the ideal example of the kind of worthless, bankrupt, adolescent bullshit that substitutes , yada, yada, yada,

Tracy, meet me at the Alamo.

[Vickieslut]

It cannot end soon enough for me. I am a rare breed a tranny who loves cock and is a die hard republican conservative.

[Suckslut]

I support the fair tax.

[Enoch Root]

I thought we might have a couple posts worth of real discussion. What think you all about the recent debacle with Rupert Murdoch and that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former chief of the IMF?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Vickieslut

It cannot end soon enough for me. I am a rare breed a tranny who loves cock and is a die hard republican conservative.

Vicky, it should be quite obvious that you are in good company here.
Sucking tranny cock is very appealing to Liberals.

Being fucked in the ass by a tranny cock is very appealing to conservatives.

Conservatives always think they are being screwed by somebody of some thing (taxes).

Liberals on the other hand believe everybody should enjoy life, the rich and poor alike. Of course, this requires the rich to help out with some of their riches being transferred to the poor.

[KittyKaiti]

It's funny that anyone on this board would even admit to being a rightist conservative Republican. Go tell your Repub friends you like to play dress up and get fucked by other men.

[GRH]

Even if my economic and social philosophy aligned with conservative Republican values, I don't think I could ever affiliate with a party that would seek to take away transgendered/gay rights (or at the minimum, deny them).

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by GRH

Even if my economic and social philosophy aligned with conservative Republican values, I don't think I could ever affiliate with a party that would seek to take away transgendered/gay rights (or at the minimum, deny them).

Exactly but speaking of that, the very same thing occurred over on HungAngels Forums. There was a transwoman who lived part time but why part time? Because her job was a campaign member of a Republican party where she had to dress and look like a man, fully aware that she would be fired from her job if they knew she was transitioning. But she was so twisted into Republican and conservative ideology that no matter how many people explained it to her what she was doing was wrong and hypocritical she ended up leaving the forum or getting banned, not sure. She just couldn't accept the fact that by doing her job, which was to make phone calls and promote people to vote for Republicans, that she was damaging and hurting herself, her community (LGBT) and being a hypocrite, supporting and working for a party that wants to deny rights to and outlaw LGBT people. It's sad.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

It's funny that anyone on this board would even admit to being a rightist conservative Republican. Go tell your Repub friends you like to play dress up and get fucked by other men.

I gave strong hints.
The line of "Wannabees" is long.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GRH

Even if my economic and social philosophy aligned with conservative Republican values, I don't think I could ever affiliate with a party that would seek to take away transgendered/gay rights (or at the minimum, deny them).

Absolutely. Seems to me that's as good a reason to shun the Democrats as well.

[randolph]

Perhaps the two prominent conservatives on the forum (Fran and Tracy), would be willing to explain how they reconcile their politically conservative views with the intolerance and hate of conservatives toward transsexuals.

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Absolutely. Seems to me that's as good a reason to shun the Democrats as well.

Since Obama has been in office he has managed to tear down DADT and pass federal hate crimes protections for transgender. Why would you shun that? My state is run by Dems and we just passed gay marriage and laws like GENDA are in the works (which protect transgender from discrimination). Our Democratic friends have also repeatedly attempted to introduce and pass ENDA, which would protect LGB & Transgender from employment discrimination under federal law.

But every time, Republicans have fought to strike them down and religious organizations and corrupt conservative/right wing lobbyists have done everything in their power to not only kill such bills in the Congress and Senate but also openly bash transgender people and spread propaganda lies about us, ie: all those Republican right wing "Family" organizations.

I have great respect for Democrats, while I am not registered to any specific party, I voted for Obama and he was a good choice for me and the community.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

Since Obama has been in office he has managed to tear down DADT and pass federal hate crimes protections for transgender. Why would you shun that? My state is run by Dems and we just passed gay marriage and laws like GENDA are in the works (which protect transgender from discrimination). Our Democratic friends have also repeatedly attempted to introduce and pass ENDA, which would protect LGB & Transgender from employment discrimination under federal law.

But every time, Republicans have fought to strike them down and religious organizations and corrupt conservative/right wing lobbyists have done everything in their power to not only kill such bills in the Congress and Senate but also openly bash transgender people and spread propaganda lies about us, ie: all those Republican right wing "Family" organizations.

I have great respect for Democrats, while I am not registered to any specific party, I voted for Obama and he was a good choice for me and the community.

I thought the administration took down DADT grudingly. Am I wrong about this? I'd certainly like to be wrong about it. And Obama doesn't seem to want to pass a bill for marriage equality. But if you are correct Kitti then I gladly rescind my previous post.

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I thought the administration took down DADT grudingly. Am I wrong about this? I'd certainly like to be wrong about it. And Obama doesn't seem to want to pass a bill for marriage equality. But if you are correct Kitti then I gladly rescind my previous post.

No, the military and Pentagon are dismantling DADT grudgingly in accordance with the law signed by Obama and through Supreme Court order. They are dragging their feet like whiny assholes and even after the bill passed they kept discharging gays but the Supreme Court recently ordered a freeze on discharges. I hate Repubs. They won't even obey the law.

Also in regards to federal recognition of gay marriage, the Obama administration declared DOMA unconstitutional.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

No, the military and Pentagon are dismantling DADT grudgingly in accordance with the law signed by Obama and through Supreme Court order. They are dragging their feet like whiny assholes and even after the bill passed they kept discharging gays but the Supreme Court recently ordered a freeze on discharges. I hate Repubs. They won't even follow the law.

But you forget Kitty: Obama is rescinding DADT because he's weak on defense. He sympathizes with terrorists. Hell he is one. Hussein? Don't tell me that's not a terrorist name. What we need to win this--neverending--war is strong virile heterosexual men. No one shoots like a man pumped up with testosterone and lusting after his wife or girlfriend back home. And heterosexuality also endows you with God's own light, thus protecting you from bullets. Destroy the sanctity of marriage and that of the Army by giving them to the homosexual communists--50s or 40s reference I am not fucking kidding--and you deliver us unto the terrorists.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

No, the military and Pentagon are dismantling DADT grudgingly in accordance with the law signed by Obama and through Supreme Court order. They are dragging their feet like whiny assholes and even after the bill passed they kept discharging gays but the Supreme Court recently ordered a freeze on discharges. I hate Repubs. They won't even obey the law.

The Supreme Court ordered a freeze on them? I'm quite surprised.

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But you forget Kitty: Obama is rescinding DADT because he's weak on defense. He sympathizes with terrorists. Hell he is one. Hussein? Don't tell me that's not a terrorist name. What we need to win this--neverending--war is strong virile heterosexual men. No one shoots like a man pumped up with testosterone and lusting after his wife or girlfriend back home. And heterosexuality also endows you with God's own light, thus protecting you from bullets. Destroy the sanctity of marriage and that of the Army by giving them to the homosexual communists--50s or 40s reference I am not fucking kidding--and you deliver us unto the terrorists.

Please tell me that entire statement is a troll joke.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

Please tell me that entire statement is a troll joke.

A joke yes. Though not a troll joke. But now you've made me explain which makes me

I think my best defense lies with the posts I've made in this forum before. Most of which can be found on this very thread.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

Since Obama has been in office he has managed to tear down DADT

Say whu??

Obama's legislative cowpat of a repeal for dadt is such a worthless sponge it allows the military to drag thier feet for as long as possible, in the meantime continuing to discharge gay personnel. The discharge of gay soldiers was actually stopped by the Log Cabin Republican's court action. Obama then promptly cried about how it should be changed through legislation, not a court ruling.

Just goes to show what a worthless sack of dough Obama is that he gets beaten to the punch by a Republican group on one of his own campaign promises.

Yes, Democrats may be better than the Republicans but only in the same way as a 1 legged dog is better than a no legged dog.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Say whu??

Obama's legislative cowpat of a repeal for dadt is such a worthless sponge it allows the military to drag thier feet for as long as possible, in the meantime continuing to discharge gay personnel. The discharge of gay soldiers was actually stopped by the Log Cabin Republican's court action. Obama then promptly cried about how it should be changed through legislation, not a court ruling.

Just goes to show what a worthless sack of dough Obama is that he gets beaten to the punch by a Republican group on one of his own campaign promises.

Yes, Democrats may be better than the Republicans but only in the same way as a 1 legged dog is better than a no legged dog.

I think I agree with Anna now. That part about the dog, that part...that part is funny.

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Say whu??

Obama's legislative cowpat of a repeal for dadt is such a worthless sponge it allows the military to drag thier feet for as long as possible, in the meantime continuing to discharge gay personnel. The discharge of gay soldiers was actually stopped by the Log Cabin Republican's court action. Obama then promptly cried about how it should be changed through legislation, not a court ruling.

Just goes to show what a worthless sack of dough Obama is that he gets beaten to the punch by a Republican group on one of his own campaign promises.

Yes, Democrats may be better than the Republicans but only in the same way as a 1 legged dog is better than a no legged dog.

I can't find anything about Obama "crying about the court ruling". And the Log Cabin Repubs are homosexuals... they must have their party affiliations confused.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

I can't find anything about Obama "crying about the court ruling". And the Log Cabin Repubs are homosexuals... they must have their party affiliations confused.

Must resist lowbrow lazy joke about the Log Cabin Republicans----

[randolph]

"Liberal free for all coming to an end" ?
More than that will be coming to an end if the Repubs have there way. A default could well be the end of the American dream. Playing Russian roulette with the economy is the height of irresponsibility. The Congress is responsible for the government expenses. They can cut expenses and raise or lower taxes, it's up to them. They don't have to listen to lobbyists or anybody else other than the voters. Obama can't raise the debt ceiling, it's up to Congress to do what is right for the country.
Expenses are out of control primarily because of Reaganomics. The absurd belief that you can increase revenue by cutting taxes. It didn't work during Reagon's presidency or during the Bush administration, yet Repubs in congress like to spend money as much as the Democrats. The difference is the Democrats realize you have to raise taxes if you want to spend more money.
Right now we need a strong leader who can rally the public to force this fucked up Congress to shape up and represent the people.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by randolph

Perhaps the two prominent conservatives on the forum (Fran and Tracy), would be willing to explain how they reconcile their politically conservative views with the intolerance and hate of conservatives toward transsexuals.

You are mixing apples and oranges. The republicans like me because I'm conservative. Am I trying to reconcile hatred here from others because I am conservative? Ever notice how many conservatives used to be Democrats? Former Texas Governor John Connally comes to mind. Hatred of transsexuals is not bound by party lines. What I can't stand is just about everything that the democrats seem to support. ( the list is too long to waste the web space)

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by randolph

"Liberal free for all coming to an end" ?
Right now we need a strong leader who can rally the public to force this fucked up Congress to shape up and represent the people.

I guess I'm not one of "the people". ( Oh yes, I've been labled thank you. I'm a transsexual.)

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Perhaps the two prominent conservatives on the forum (Fran and Tracy), would be willing to explain how they reconcile their politically conservative views with the intolerance and hate of conservatives toward transsexuals.

As you might have noticed when I'm talking about the GOP candidates I don't completely agree with the GOP platform. The political spectrum is not one dimensional => fiscally liberal to fiscally conservative. Transgendered/gay rights are certainly a good thing, but if the country is bankrupt and the dollar collapses then I'm going to be overwhelmed with much bigger issues. No the country isn't bankrupt, and the dollar is fine at the moment, but we could literally turn on the tv tomorrow and find out different.

Everyone has their own ideas on how we got to this point, but for me it's not entirely the democrats that did it, but certainly the Obama administration has had a huge hand in where we are now. I know we've raised the debt limit several times in the past but the debt has skyrocketed so high over the past few years that I really don't feel that we can blindly raise the debt ceiling without at least a balanced budget agreement.

I also know republicans have been spending into the red as well, but nowhere near as far as the Obama administration.

At least for now, the republicans are finally serious about cutting the deficit. Both sides have acknowledged that the debt needs to be cut. They should also recognize the difficulty in doing that. They HAVE to agree on a balanced budget amendment.

[TracyCoxx]

The U. S. State Department yesterday announced that the Obama Administration has agreed to contribute $4 billion to the United Nations Global Fund to fight AIDs, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from 2011 to 2013.

The $4 billion represents a 38% increase over the previous U.S. commitment to the fund.

Does anyone think Obama feels any urgency in cutting spending?

[franalexes]

Your question of course is addressed to those that would have an afirmative answer.
I do not . The republicans have come up with several plans. The president and the dem's in the Senate have rejected them ,but have not presented a plan of their own. A few days ago the Senate even voted to shut off debate about the issue. How numb is that? They don't even want to discuss it let alone fix it!
Obama has said we need to cut AFTER we spend a little more.
"Let's put off serious solution 'til AFTER I get re-elected." ( implied response)

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

.

At least for now, the republicans are finally serious about cutting the deficit. Both sides have acknowledged that the debt needs to be cut. They should also recognize the difficulty in doing that. They HAVE to agree on a balanced budget amendment.

Thanks for the laugh i need one
Are you talking about the same GOP that added a few trillion to the debt by insisting the Bush tax cuts for the top ten percent remain intact are you refering to the same GOP that insist cuts be made on the backs of the seniors while the rich opps sorry so called job creators keep there tax cuts and not have to scarifice

CAP CUT BALANCE is nothing but next years bumper sticker and typical GOP screw the poor deal and make damn sure the rich pay no taxes
When bozos like Palin and Bachman say it's the best way forward you know it's a typical GOP to the poor
The tea party wack a dos insist on cuts cuts and don't dare expect the rich to pay one penny of tax
GOD forbid the top ten percent have to chip in and be burdened with paying there fair share in fact they need to be taxed less according to the 12 bozos trying to head the 12 ticket
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Are you talking about the same GOP that added a few trillion to the debt by insisting the Bush tax cuts for the top ten percent remain intact

Obama announces tentative deal to extend Bush tax cuts
Well I think that addresses your first question.

Originally Posted by transjen

are you refering to the same GOP that insist cuts be made on the backs of the seniors

The GOP isn't insisting that. That's what happens if the republicans AND democrats can't compromise. Both sides would like a solution though.

[randolph]

The Myths of Reaganomics
Check out this site for an explanation and how it relates to the present situation.
http://mises.org/daily/1544

[TracyCoxx]

So last friday, Boner announced that he's done dealing with Obama because Obama 'moved the goal posts'. i.e. he previously agreed to something and then reneged. So he decided he'll just deal with the Senate.

And Harry Reid is actually negotiating with him. So the pres is cut out. Proposals from both the house and senate will not raise taxes. Interesting...