Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
FRUMY
Trad climber
SHERMAN OAKS,CA
|
|
Feb 15, 2011 - 11:39am PT
|
Cutting your throat would save a little more.
& bring you a little closer to the truth.
Under bush gas hit $4.50
You list a lot of things that took a lot of years to get in the shape they are in today
& this is why the worlds fcked up. You will lie to prove your point.
REP. & DEM. SUCK & so do you.
|
|
Daniel Eubank
Sport climber
Woodbridge, VA
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 15, 2011 - 12:28pm PT
|
2009 to TODAY with references cited.
"Rep and Dem suck and so do you" Cite your references and quantify; this is a qualitative assessment based upon?
You know, I’m starting to get this hoe, I mean whole, dirtbag and Dr F. liberal thang’. Personal attacks are waaaaay more fun than diligent research, thoughtful analysis and engaging in meaningful dialogue.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Feb 15, 2011 - 12:35pm PT
|
You know, I’m starting to get this hoe, I mean whole, dirtbag and Dr F. liberal thang’. Personal attacks are waaaaay more fun than diligent research, thoughtful analysis and engaging in meaningful dialogue.
"diligent research, thoughtful analysis and engaging in meaningful dialogue"
You mean, like you've been providing all along?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Suck it.
|
|
Daniel Eubank
Sport climber
Woodbridge, VA
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 15, 2011 - 12:39pm PT
|
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Feb 15, 2011 - 02:16pm PT
|
At what point when a person's posting behavior starts to mimic a spambot should they be moderated?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Feb 15, 2011 - 02:21pm PT
|
That's his idea of "diligent research, thoughtful analysis and engaging in meaningful dialogue."
|
|
D.Eubanks
climber
|
|
Feb 18, 2011 - 09:53am PT
|
(A slight mix-up here.)
Dana Eubanks does not contribute to any political threads.
Daniel Eubank does contribute to political threads.
Thank you,
Dana
|
|
D.Eubanks
climber
|
|
Feb 18, 2011 - 12:32pm PT
|
Thank You! Crowley
Dana
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Bump so that if we're gonna have a thread like this on the front page, it oughta at least be the original one.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Recent news reports say that the short version seems to be that both the current and last President appear to be lying sacks of sh#t on wanting to get us invoked militarily in places we should stay out of. Thank God the congress voted to keep us out of Obama's announced attack on Syria. Semore Hersh on Obama lying to get us into war: http://news.yahoo.com/seymour-hersh-alleges-obama-administration-lied-syria-gas-204437397.html
Short version, Obama lied to get us to attack Syria. Blurb from link:
" Hersh says the thorough daily intelligence briefings in the days surrounding the gas attack did not make a single mention of Syria, even as videos and photos of the attack went viral across the Internet. He added that there was revealed a sensor system in Syria that had, in December 2012, shown sarin production at a chemical weapons depot arranged by the Syrian army. Though it was unclear whether this was a simulation or not – all militaries, Hersh says, practice simulations of such things – Obama promptly warned Syria that use of sarin gas would be "unacceptable."
‘If what the sensors saw last December was so important that the president had to call and say, “Knock it off,” why didn’t the president issue the same warning three days before the gas attack in August?’
The media succumbed to confirmation bias in response to a UN report on the attack. That report, which is less than certain in its terms, said that the spent weapon "indicatively matches" the specifics of a 330mm calibre artillery rocket. MIT professor Theodore Postol and other munitions experts later reviewed the photos and said that it was improvised, likely made locally, didn't match anything in the Syrian arsenal and would not have been able to travel the nine kilometres from the Syrian army base that the media presumed it was fired from.
Postol and a colleague, Richard M. Lloyd, published an analysis two weeks after 21 August in which they correctly assessed that the rockets involved carried a far greater payload of sarin than previously estimated. The Times reported on that analysis at length, describing Postol and Lloyd as ‘leading weapons experts’. The pair’s later study about the rockets’ flight paths and range, which contradicted previous Times reporting, was emailed to the newspaper last week; it has so far gone unreported.
Though a UN resolution nullified the chances of American military intervention, the impact would be significant if the allegations hold up; recall that President George W. Bush's legacy was deeply tainted by charges that the U.S. had no proof of nuclear weapons in Iraq when they said they did. Hersh hints at the seriousness of the charges himself: "The cherry-picking was similar to the process used to justify the Iraq war."
AS SAID UPTHREAD
"I only want to say that the difference between the dems and repubs seems to be this:
Democrats are for taxing and spending: -taking the country into the shithole.
Republicans are for borrowing and spending: taking the country into an even deeper shithole.
Clinton was the exception. I see little difference between Bush and Obama - they BOTH seemed intent on spending our country into hell. Samesame NO DIFFERENCE! I bet that both of their wives handle their finances. Our children will be paying for this craziness. Time to vote libertarian and reduce the size of big government. "
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Your stated intent maybe?
prosecute the tortures
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Prince Barry gave a speech a few days ago on "income inequality"
The five things he didn't tell you.
a. Five years into his presidency he so far hasn’t done anything to stop growing income inequality–the problem has gotten worse on his watch.
b. He doesn’t have any proposals (“It’s time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act”) that come close to solving the problem as he defines it.
c. His one big previous initiative to reduce inequality–the Affordable Care Act–may now be hopelessly screwed up due to his own inattention and non-competence.
d. His remaining big domestic initiative–”comprehensive” immigration reform–would almost certainly make inequality worse by vastly increasing the number of unskilled workers bidding down wages at the bottom of the income scale, with the profits from the cheap labor going to business owners at the top.
Also the final numbers are in on the Government Motors fiasco.
We, (yes all you progressives too)
took a 10.5 billion dollar bath on a handout to,
BIG BUSINESS!
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 12:05am PT
|
What's wrong with income inequality?
Unequal doesn't mean unfair.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Dec 18, 2013 - 02:07pm PT
|
What's wrong with income inequality?
Nothing as long as it's not too extreme.
Unequal doesn't mean unfair.
Unless the people making over $10 million a year have undue influence over politicians so laws are created to benefit them at the expense of others.
Income inequality is rising to levels that can hurt the economy and society that's the problem.
The super rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
Unfortunately the super rich have a lot of power so there is the real danger that any changes will come from the middle class and especially upper middle class to help the poor, instead of from those making millions or billions of dollars.
IMO even the working poor should pay at least 1% to contribute something, but the taxes on the very rich (e.g. $5 million a year plus) should rise mainly through closing loopholes, so they are contributing more to the infrastructure and society that enables them to make a lot of money.
Of course you hear from the right how the rich already pay the majority of the taxes already, which is true, but it makes sense because they get so much of the income. e.g. the top 1% earns more income than the bottom 50%.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Dec 18, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
|
IMO even the working poor should pay at least 1% to contribute something, but the taxes on the very rich (e.g. $5 million a year plus) should rise mainly through closing loopholes, so they are contributing more to the infrastructure and society that enables them to make a lot of money.
Of course you hear from the right how the rich already pay the majority of the taxes already, which is true, but it makes sense because they get so much of the income. e.g. the top 1% earns more income than the bottom 50%.
Good point, as usual, the Fet. Unfortunately, the "loopholes" won't be easy to close, because most of them don't benefit the rich as much as they do the middle class. I still remember a a famous Brookings study by Joseph Pechman (a true believer in closing loopholes) decrying various "loopholes for the rich." It turned out the joint return was his biggest "loophole for the rich." He didn't even deal with interest deductions (back then, all interest was deductible).
We could debate whether the joint return qualifies as a loophole, and we've closed one of his major ones -- tax free Social Security -- but neither are really loopholes "for the rich." We have yet to touch the biggest loophole -- mortgage interest and the $500k tax-free sale of a primary residence.
Capital gains pose a tougher problem, because the lack of income averaging and the effects of long-term inflation distort the nature of a capital gain.
Of at least equal importance, we need a better definition of the "rich." I've known and represented many clients over the years who sold their businesses, built over decades, for prices in excess of $1million. Does that make them "Super rich" if that was the only time in their lives they had income in excess of $100,000.00? If we allocated the gain in the sale of their business over the lifetime of their ownership, their income would be moderate at best. Put another way, one year they have very high income, but never before or since. Do they belong to the set of "the rich?"
Finally, I question the idea of increased income inequality as being a cause of recession or lack of economic growth. The empirical evidence is lacking, and even Marx dismissed the idea in theory (Curiously, several "Marxists" subscribed to the theory, but when they claim that Marx did, they can only quote each other, rather than Marx).
We should focus on income change for the poorest and for the middle class, not on the gap. My real indictment of the past five years (for which both parties realistically share the blame) is that the poor and middle class lost income and wealth. It would not make me feel better if the upper crust lost more income. Income inequality merely diverts attention from our lack of growth.
John
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
Dec 18, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
|
Didn't Romney/Ryan propose an unspecified bunch of loophole closures?
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Dec 18, 2013 - 10:06pm PT
|
Locker...If you pay those Mac donald workers a living wage , the price of a big Mac will sky-rocket and the CEO will have to take a pay cut which will lead him to lay more workers off and force the CEO to fill in and help flip burgers...Don't be a fool..!
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
Dec 18, 2013 - 10:18pm PT
|
As a registered Republican: I have to commend the Republicans & Democrats in the House & Senate that worked together to pass a budget bill.
I think it's time for Republicans in Congress to start working with Democrats to pull America out of the current economic & moral slump.
It does appear that the Congressional Republican agenda for the last 5 years has been to make Obama and the Democrats fail, at the expense of what is best for our great nation.
Fuk those people. Let's work together to improve our country!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|