Debate Venues & Moderators

[Guest]

Can anyone explain why the Republican debates are spread between the liberal media networks and moderators (ex: MSNBC, CNN, etc) and conservative Fox (News and Business), yet the Democratic debates and moderators are all on liberal networks with liberal moderators? Seems the Republicans are not concerned with addressing the "tough questions" from the liberal side, but the Dems are avoiding having the same from the conservative side. Do not make this a Trump issue, so please, without sarcasm if possible, give an opinion on the question posed above.

[Guest]

I believe that you answered your own question.

When liberals control the forum, they dictate ahead of time the end results. They are liberal in name only. As a matter of fact, liberal is an oxymoron when it comes to their true ideology. By dictating the end results, they can tailor the agenda to maintain only a positive camouflage. In political terms, it's called smoke and mirrors. Dishonesty is a mandate, not a choice. Hmmm, that sounds partisan. If it is true, is it still considered partisan?

[Guest]

The networks rule .

[Guest]

Can anyone explain why the Republican debates are spread between the liberal media networks and moderators (ex: MSNBC, CNN, etc) and conservative Fox (News and Business), yet the Democratic debates and moderators are all on liberal networks with liberal moderators? Seems the Republicans are not concerned with addressing the "tough questions" from the liberal side, but the Dems are avoiding having the same from the conservative side. Do not make this a Trump issue, so please, without sarcasm if possible, give an opinion on the question posed above.

Here is the answer, your premise is completely wrong. Fox is a conservative network, MSNBC is a progressive one. CNN and the three traditional networks are middle of the road. It seems that right wingers see the non-Fox media as all liberal and the left wingers see the non-MSNBC as all conservative. So your premise is wrong, and your information is wrong.
Here are the networks hosting GOP debates:
Aug 2015 Fox News
Sep 2015 CNN
Oct 2015 CNBC
Nov 2015 Fox Business
Dec 2015 CNN
Jan 2016 Fox Business
Jan 2016 Fox News

So where do you see MSNBC in that list? Nowhere.

Where have the Democratic debates been?
Oct 2015 CNN
Nov 2015 CBS
Dec 2015 ABC
Jan 2016 NBC

Nothing on MSNBC either. And when the Fox News questions, from a right wing news organization, are too mean for the right wing candidates? How are they going to find a bunch of friendlier people to ask questions than that.
Your GOP candidates are complaining about the FOX news questions. They haven't begun to get the MSNBC questions or any liberal questions.

[Guest]

Who cares???

Liberals get upset if no one agrees with them or someone uses facts, so they resort to name calling. Doesn't bother me, because then I know that I won the debate. But, they get mad when they don't get the proper response and run away. They only resort to name calling when they know that they haven't done their home work and then look stupid. Their only other tactic is to ask baiting questions and attempt to divert from the subject.

And that is why conservatives don't bother to frequent liberal sites.

[Guest]

Who cares???

Liberals get upset if no one agrees with them or someone uses facts, so they resort to name calling. Doesn't bother me, because then I know that I won the debate. But, they get mad when they don't get the proper response and run away. They only resort to name calling when they know that they haven't done their home work and then look stupid. Their only other tactic is to ask baiting questions and attempt to divert from the subject.

And that is why conservatives don't bother to frequent liberal sites.

"Liberals get upset if no one agrees with them or someone uses facts, so they resort to name calling." I guess you haven't read the conservative posts on here.

[Guest]

Who cares???

Liberals get upset if no one agrees with them or someone uses facts, so they resort to name calling. Doesn't bother me, because then I know that I won the debate. But, they get mad when they don't get the proper response and run away. They only resort to name calling when they know that they haven't done their home work and then look stupid. Their only other tactic is to ask baiting questions and attempt to divert from the subject.

And that is why conservatives don't bother to frequent liberal sites.

but they sure do frequent our forum do they not!!

[Guest]

After you figure the network question out, try to explain why the Dems scheduled their debates when not many folks would be watching.

[Guest]

After you figure the network question out, try to explain why the Dems scheduled their debates when not many folks would be watching.

:agree:

[Guest]

And why is it now Clinton is pushing for more debates. If she doesn't like what is unfolding she just switches her position to suit.....HERSELF!

A full blooded self serving phony.

[Guest]

"Liberals get upset if no one agrees with them or someone uses facts, so they resort to name calling." I guess you haven't read the conservative posts on here.

Really? Maybe you should go back and read how your troll baits the other posters with ridiculous statements and name calling, just to get attention. I have not seen one conservative name call on here, until the troll baits him into losing his tolerance for juvenile and snide remarks. Go ahead and do your checking and come back AND THEN comment about how harshly you are treated. Name calling politicians doesn't count. Those aren't personal and are always expected. Just watch the news and you will see it coming from the left all the time.

[Guest]

I am going to ask a question, and really don't know the answer? Have any of the Democratic candidates ever been on Fox News? Have they invited and not accepted?

All of the Republicans candidates have been on MSNBC especially Morning Joe. Their interviews have bot been cut short. I haven't seen once where they were not opinions where not respected.

[Guest]

If you listened to Trump last week, how could not go away with the impression that Fox News is only into the debates for the ratings, and the money to be made from them. Without Trump, there would be little to no interest in the Republican debate.

Trump had a set of rules before he would go on O'Reilly. O'Reilly violated them in one of his questions.

To answer your question why there are not any Democratic debates on Fox News. Fox News is considered an arm of the Republican National Committee. If you don't think that this is a case., take a look at the war between Fox News and Trump.

[Guest]

I am going to ask a question, and really don't know the answer? Have any of the Democratic candidates ever been on Fox News? Have they invited and not accepted?

All of the Republicans candidates have been on MSNBC especially Morning Joe. Their interviews have bot been cut short. I haven't seen once where they were not opinions where not respected.

Yes, they have been invited and refused.

[Guest]

If you listened to Trump last week, how could not go away with the impression that Fox News is only into the debates for the ratings, and the money to be made from them. Without Trump, there would be little to no interest in the Republican debate.

Trump had a set of rules before he would go on O'Reilly. O'Reilly violated them in one of his questions.

To answer your question why there are not any Democratic debates on Fox News. Fox News is considered an arm of the Republican National Committee. If you don't think that this is a case., take a look at the war between Fox News and Trump.

And yet FOX is the most watched/number 1 cable news network in the country. So, if there is one conservative leaning network on the air, you liberals are going to complain about it, right? Kind of selfish, aren't you?

[Guest]

And yet FOX is the most watched/number 1 cable news network in the country. So, if there is one conservative leaning network on the air, you liberals are going to complain about it, right? Kind of selfish, aren't you?

While the rest of the lettered media not only leans but formats, edits out and tailors their content to not only lean but 100% fall in line with the liberal agenda.

[Guest]

Here is the answer, your premise is completely wrong. Fox is a conservative network, MSNBC is a progressive one. CNN and the three traditional networks are middle of the road. It seems that right wingers see the non-Fox media as all liberal and the left wingers see the non-MSNBC as all conservative. So your premise is wrong, and your information is wrong.
Here are the networks hosting GOP debates:
Aug 2015 Fox News
Sep 2015 CNN
Oct 2015 CNBC
Nov 2015 Fox Business
Dec 2015 CNN
Jan 2016 Fox Business
Jan 2016 Fox News

So where do you see MSNBC in that list? Nowhere.

Where have the Democratic debates been?
Oct 2015 CNN
Nov 2015 CBS
Dec 2015 ABC
Jan 2016 NBC

Nothing on MSNBC either. And when the Fox News questions, from a right wing news organization, are too mean for the right wing candidates? How are they going to find a bunch of friendlier people to ask questions than that.
Your GOP candidates are complaining about the FOX news questions. They haven't begun to get the MSNBC questions or any liberal questions.

Nice research.

Where will the debates be this year??

[Guest]

Nice research.

Where will the debates be this year??

I mean the Presidential debates once we have the candidates come July 2016.

[Guest]

And yet FOX is the most watched/number 1 cable news network in the country. So, if there is one conservative leaning network on the air, you liberals are going to complain about it, right? Kind of selfish, aren't you?

Since there is only one conservative network, don't you think that is why they are number one? Liberals, which I am not one, have several places to go to get their news. I am suppose to be selfish, because you have only one place to go to get your news Fox News, which is the mouth piece of the Republican National Committee. Maybe, you should get out of your bubble, and view other news stations. You can start with Morning Joe. If you think that Morning Joe is a liberal news program, then you are beyond hope.

[Guest]

Yes, they have been invited and refused.

Thank you for answering my question. Apparently, Clinton, and Sanders agree on something. They either feel that the moderators wouldn't treat them fairly, or the Fox viewer is entranced in the Republican party that nothing would be gained by appearing on that station.

[Guest]

Thank you for answering my question. Apparently, Clinton, and Sanders agree on something. They either feel that the moderators wouldn't treat them fairly, or the Fox viewer is entranced in the Republican party that nothing would be gained by appearing on that station.

So, you are the spokesperson for them? Or, since liberals all think the same, they feel that the candidates would get tougher questions than what is their favorite color or how much free stuff are they going to promise? Either way, you seem to think that you have the answer so why bother asking?

The right answer is that they are afraid to answer questions that the voter wants answered. Supposedly, that is the reasoning for having debates. Although, the Democrat debates were hidden and no one was required to answer the moderators' questions. They just went off on a tangent. Same with the GOP debates, except that a couple of the moderators forced them back on subject. Not so with the DNC debates. But, you know who you are going to vote for....then one that promises you the most.

[Guest]

Since there is only one conservative network, don't you think that is why they are number one? Liberals, which I am not one, have several places to go to get their news. I am suppose to be selfish, because you have only one place to go to get your news Fox News, which is the mouth piece of the Republican National Committee. Maybe, you should get out of your bubble, and view other news stations. You can start with Morning Joe. If you think that Morning Joe is a liberal news program, then you are beyond hope.

So, FOX is the number one cable news network because they are conservative? OK, maybe you are right. Maybe that is why everyone is watching. But, it might also be that it is number one because they provide news that is skimmed over by the liberal media, if mentioned at all.

As far as watching other news stations, I do. I watch on the average four morning local news stations, and frequently CNN when something important is going on overseas. I enjoy hearing liberals rant about how Hillary is being targeted by the Republicans, and how this country is shifting to socialism to be more like Europe. The reason I sometimes enjoy listening to liberals rant about how hard life is for them, is because I have four successful children that I raised that are doing fine. They are financially stable, patriotic and Christian. Couldn't ask for much more than that. You see, I enjoy listen to liberals cry about how weak they are and how the rich need to provide for them. Because, I won't be around when this country turns totally to socialism. It won't be the U.S. of A. anymore, but that is exactly what liberal deserve. They are too weak to make it on their own. They feel that it is perfectly OK for them to take from the rich. I have news for you, when this country becomes socialist/communist, there will still be the rich. There just won't be a middle class. The poor will be kept by the gov and controlled. And the rich will continue to run the country from the top.

And I have no problem with the rich being rich. I live better because of them. So do the poor and the rest of the middle class. Liberals just don't get it. But, they will. When they get what they have been asking for, they will get it. They will understand. They will understand why everyone wants to be like us, at least before we threw away our initiative, ethics and morals.

[Guest]

So, FOX is the number one cable news network because they are conservative? OK, maybe you are right. Maybe that is why everyone is watching. But, it might also be that it is number one because they provide news that is skimmed over by the liberal media, if mentioned at all.

As far as watching other news stations, I do. I watch on the average four morning local news stations, and frequently CNN when something important is going on overseas. I enjoy hearing liberals rant about how Hillary is being targeted by the Republicans, and how this country is shifting to socialism to be more like Europe. The reason I sometimes enjoy listening to liberals rant about how hard life is for them, is because I have four successful children that I raised that are doing fine. They are financially stable, patriotic and Christian. Couldn't ask for much more than that. You see, I enjoy listen to liberals cry about how weak they are and how the rich need to provide for them. Because, I won't be around when this country turns totally to socialism. It won't be the U.S. of A. anymore, but that is exactly what liberal deserve. They are too weak to make it on their own. They feel that it is perfectly OK for them to take from the rich. I have news for you, when this country becomes socialist/communist, there will still be the rich. There just won't be a middle class. The poor will be kept by the gov and controlled. And the rich will continue to run the country from the top.

And I have no problem with the rich being rich. I live better because of them. So do the poor and the rest of the middle class. Liberals just don't get it. But, they will. When they get what they have been asking for, they will get it. They will understand. They will understand why everyone wants to be like us, at least before we threw away our initiative, ethics and morals.

I really doubt if you know what "socialist" means. It is not giving food stamps or housing benefits to needy people. Those are "social programs".

When and where did you hear Sen. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton call for government takeover of private companies?

Nothing wrong with having the uber rich pay a higher percentage in income and corporate taxes. No, that is NOT a "redistribution of wealth".

Bitching about the welfare payments that the poor people get? Why not try living in one of their shacks in Wildwood or a trailer in Lady Lake for a month in July or August?

[Guest]

I really doubt if you know what "socialist" means. It is not giving food stamps or housing benefits to needy people. Those are "social programs".

When and where did you hear Sen. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton call for government takeover of private companies?

Nothing wrong with having the uber rich pay a higher percentage in income and corporate taxes. No, that is NOT a "redistribution of wealth".

Bitching about the welfare payments that the poor people get? Why not try living in one of their shacks in Wildwood or a trailer in Lady Lake for a month in July or August?

Yep, I do know what socialism is. Some of us fought them in war. Some DIDN'T.
Hey friend, you do know that Sanders IS a socialist right? And you did watch the Socialist, I mean DNC debate didn't you? Wow, some folks are pretty naive.
How much do you feel is "fair" enough for the rich to pay? They already pay high taxes so that YOU don't. Why do you believe in discrimination? WHY???

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Making anyone pay higher percentage of their income than others is DISCRIMINATION. Sorry, but if you want the rich to pay half their income, then you must pay half your income.

And as far as living in a trailer ins concerned, done that. And I did that while supporting a family with children. So, don't try that one on me. I worked three jobs at once to dig myself out of debt. I didn't have a socialist president that gave the OK to walk out on my obligations. And now I am here in the Villages. On top of that, I served my country, before and after I married. So, without further need of justifying my remarks, where do you get off telling me that I don't' know something? I have no idea whether or not you had the guts or patriotism to serve your country. I wouldn't know and won't ask. I don't suggest to you that you haven't lived poor like myself and then raised myself out of it, to later make six figure incomes. But yes, I do scorn those that want to take from someone without permission to give to another. I have no problem if you want to donate your income or time to the needy. That's your choice. But, I do know that if you look at statistics, you will find that most of your large donations to charity are from the conservative wealthy. It's easy for liberals to be charitable with someone else's money. After all, we have more than we need....at least according to you.

[Guest]

So, you are the spokesperson for them? Or, since liberals all think the same, they feel that the candidates would get tougher questions than what is their favorite color or how much free stuff are they going to promise? Either way, you seem to think that you have the answer so why bother asking?

The right answer is that they are afraid to answer questions that the voter wants answered. Supposedly, that is the reasoning for having debates. Although, the Democrat debates were hidden and no one was required to answer the moderators' questions. They just went off on a tangent. Same with the GOP debates, except that a couple of the moderators forced them back on subject. Not so with the DNC debates. But, you know who you are going to vote for....then one that promises you the most.

I laughing at you. Your post is total nonsense. Since I am not going to vote for either one of them, why would I be the spokesman for them? Why? Take your liberal tag, and shove it. I asked the question, because I didn't know if Fox News had ask Clinton and Sanders to join in a debate on their station. Some of us really are honest, and not here just to start an argue with someone.

It is common sense that , if you have no hope of getting anyone that watches Fox News to vote for you, you don't appear on a debate sponsored by that station. You do know what common sense is, don't you? If you don't think that is the case try answering this. Why did Kasich, Paul, Christie, and probably others spend so little time in Iowa? When you have no hope of winning the state, why waste time there? Why speak to people that will not listen or vote for you? the same logic applies.

Fox News certainly did bring the candidates back on subject. Trump was so taken back by this that he didn't appear at the last debate. I guess answering questions that he is asked is something that he is not used too. If Trump didn't think that Fox News would treat him fairly, why is it a stretch to think that Clinton, and Sanders wouldn't feel the same way?

I am going to vote for the person that promises me the most. Who the hell do you think that you are talking too? Other than social security, and Medicare, I have never received a penny from the federal or state governments in my entire life. try doing something that is totally out of character for you, and keep your cheap shots to yourself.

[Guest]

Yep, I do know what socialism is. Some of us fought them in war. Some DIDN'T.
Hey friend, you do know that Sanders IS a socialist right? And you did watch the Socialist, I mean DNC debate didn't you? Wow, some folks are pretty naive.
How much do you feel is "fair" enough for the rich to pay? They already pay high taxes so that YOU don't. Why do you believe in discrimination? WHY???

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Making anyone pay higher percentage of their income than others is DISCRIMINATION. Sorry, but if you want the rich to pay half their income, then you must pay half your income.

And as far as living in a trailer ins concerned, done that. And I did that while supporting a family with children. So, don't try that one on me. I worked three jobs at once to dig myself out of debt. I didn't have a socialist president that gave the OK to walk out on my obligations. And now I am here in the Villages. On top of that, I served my country, before and after I married. So, without further need of justifying my remarks, where do you get off telling me that I don't' know something? I have no idea whether or not you had the guts or patriotism to serve your country. I wouldn't know and won't ask. I don't suggest to you that you haven't lived poor like myself and then raised myself out of it, to later make six figure incomes. But yes, I do scorn those that want to take from someone without permission to give to another. I have no problem if you want to donate your income or time to the needy. That's your choice. But, I do know that if you look at statistics, you will find that most of your large donations to charity are from the conservative wealthy. It's easy for liberals to be charitable with someone else's money. After all, we have more than we need....at least according to you.

Socialism and communism are not one in the same. They are two different animals. I am not sure what war you could have fought a socialist adversary.

Discrimination is against the law. A graduated income tax is not against the law. If it was, don't you think that someone, or some group would have sued the federal government by now, and forced the Supreme Court to rule on it?

If everyone paying the same tax rate is your idea to stop discrimination, should everybody be paying the same property tax no matter what the value of their house is? All speeding tickets should be the same amount no matter how much over the speed limit you were traveling. Car insurance should be the same for everyone no matter what your driving history is. You get the idea.

I assume that you are a Christian. What happened to the rule "that we should help those that can't help themselves". You give the impression any social or tax program that helps the needy is only put forward by the Democrats. Republicans would rather die than give the needy a penny.

[Guest]

Socialism and communism are not one in the same. They are two different animals. I am not sure what war you could have fought a socialist adversary.

Discrimination is against the law. A graduated income tax is not against the law. If it was, don't you think that someone, or some group would have sued the federal government by now, and forced the Supreme Court to rule on it?

If everyone paying the same tax rate is your idea to stop discrimination, should everybody be paying the same property tax no matter what the value of their house is? All speeding tickets should be the same amount no matter how much over the speed limit you were traveling. Car insurance should be the same for everyone no matter what your driving history is. You get the idea.

I assume that you are a Christian. What happened to the rule "that we should help those that can't help themselves". You give the impression any social or tax program that helps the needy is only put forward by the Democrats. Republicans would rather die than give the needy a penny.

You can't have communism without socialism. Read up on it before running amok with your false indignity.
I said "discrimination" is against the law. Eventually, someone might take the tax law to the supreme court, especially if they do away with tax breaks. Property tax IS the same for everyone, as far as percentage according to the value of the home. Where have you been all your life? The rest of your blather is just lame and not even relevant. Private insurance and fines for breaking laws has nothing to do with the subject. Maybe you don't know the difference??
Why is it that you LIBERALS throw Christianity at anyone that claims to be conservative and then act like you know what it is? Help the needy??? You are really joking, right? Are you really that naive to think that taxes are for the needy, like donations to a church?
As far as your stupid comment about the Republicans not giving to the needy, do a bit of research before making such a stupid comment. You will find out that conservatives give many times more to charity than liberals. Liberals want to give other people's money to the needy, not theirs.

Oh, and do a little research into American history so that you won't need to question a person's statement about fighting socialism in a war. Ignorance is very unbecoming, even in a liberal.

[Guest]

You can't have communism without socialism. Read up on it before running amok with your false indignity.
I said "discrimination" is against the law. Eventually, someone might take the tax law to the supreme court, especially if they do away with tax breaks. Property tax IS the same for everyone, as far as percentage according to the value of the home. Where have you been all your life? The rest of your blather is just lame and not even relevant. Private insurance and fines for breaking laws has nothing to do with the subject. Maybe you don't know the difference??
Why is it that you LIBERALS throw Christianity at anyone that claims to be conservative and then act like you know what it is? Help the needy??? You are really joking, right? Are you really that naive to think that taxes are for the needy, like donations to a church?
As far as your stupid comment about the Republicans not giving to the needy, do a bit of research before making such a stupid comment. You will find out that conservatives give many times more to charity than liberals. Liberals want to give other people's money to the needy, not theirs.

Oh, and do a little research into American history so that you won't need to question a person's statement about fighting socialism in a war. Ignorance is very unbecoming, even in a liberal.

Since communism, and socialism are one in the same, why are the need for two different terms? You fought a communist country not a socialist country. US has social programs, so we are a socialist county. Since socialism and communism are one in the same. Then, the US is a communist country. That is the logic that you are throwing out there. Take a look at how a government functions in a socialist country as oppose to a communist country. They are worlds apart.

Do you have any idea, what would happen to businesses, if someone try to argue that a graduate tax is discriminatory. You want a flat tax based upon income. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people. Businesses get to deducted all their expenses. People don't. We can't deduct what we pay for food, clothing, etc. To be fair, you would have to tax businesses on their sales, or their gross profit before expenses at the individual tax rate. That would probably increase taxes on every business.

Everyone that doesn't have their head up their ass is a liberal. By all means keep your head up there. You don't want to be called a liberal.

Property tax isn't the same for everyone. Businesses are given a break on property taxes to draw them into a city or state. Values of houses aren't revalued very year. Therefore, new construction is going to have a more accurate valuation than an older house. Rate may be the same, but the value isn't.

You try to throw out there that things that aren't charged equally are discriminating. That is total nonsense.

Taxes to fund programs for the needy aren't the same as donations to the church. No. they aren't. Programs that help the needy will go the needy. There is no guarantee that donations to the church will go to the needy.

[Guest]

Since communism, and socialism are one in the same, why are the need for two different terms? You fought a communist country not a socialist country. US has social programs, so we are a socialist county. Since socialism and communism are one in the same. Then, the US is a communist country. That is the logic that you are throwing out there. Take a look at how a government functions in a socialist country as oppose to a communist country. They are worlds apart.

Do you have any idea, what would happen to businesses, if someone try to argue that a graduate tax is discriminatory. You want a flat tax based upon income. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people. Businesses get to deducted all their expenses. People don't. We can't deduct what we pay for food, clothing, etc. To be fair, you would have to tax businesses on their sales, or their gross profit before expenses at the individual tax rate. That would probably increase taxes on every business.

Everyone that doesn't have their head up their ass is a liberal. By all means keep your head up there. You don't want to be called a liberal.

Property tax isn't the same for everyone. Businesses are given a break on property taxes to draw them into a city or state. Values of houses aren't revalued very year. Therefore, new construction is going to have a more accurate valuation than an older house. Rate may be the same, but the value isn't.

You try to throw out there that things that aren't charged equally are discriminating. That is total nonsense.

Taxes to fund programs for the needy aren't the same as donations to the church. No. they aren't. Programs that help the needy will go the needy. There is no guarantee that donations to the church will go to the needy.

Oh give it a break. I didn't say that communism and socialism is the same. YOu liberals go to the extreme with everything you say. I said you can't have communism without socialism. Do you just enjoy arguing about little details, looking for a little bitty crack? I was going to copy the definition of communism and socialism to this but decided that if you are too lazy argue with the proper knowledge then I would just allow you to make a fool of yourself. I will reiterate once more for your edification, you cannot have communism without socialism. You can have forms of socialism without necessarily being communist, but you cannot have communism without socialism. Socialism is a precursor of step toward communism. Sanders is a socialist that spent his honeymoon in the USSR. That does not make him a communist, but I am interested in knowing more about his ideology and if it is leaning in that direction. Not that I am interested enough to ever vote for him. Of course not.

You know, the rest of your blather is so totally ridiculous and stupid, that I don't have the patience to instruct you on your totally wrong post.

I will try to explain a bit for you, and hope that someone with more knowledge and patience than myself will further enlighten you.

Property taxes are the same for all home owners in regards to percentage to value ratio. I am not referring to any tax breaks/incentives given to business. And this has nothing to do with personal income taxes that we were supposedly discussing....before you tried to divert from the original post.

We are not a socialist country, even though you might feel that some of our gov run programs are socialist like. Social Security and Medicare were not socialist. If you did not put into SS, you did not receive from SS. Therefore, it is not considered socialism. If you want an example of a socialist type of service, you should have used the public school system.

If you are naive enough to think that the gov gives to the needy better than the Church, then you are really way out in space. I won't even go into that. I will allow someone else to correct you. Like I said, I do not have patience for the blatantly ignorant that refuse to accept correction.

[Guest]

Oh give it a break. I didn't say that communism and socialism is the same. YOu liberals go to the extreme with everything you say. I said you can't have communism without socialism. Do you just enjoy arguing about little details, looking for a little bitty crack? I was going to copy the definition of communism and socialism to this but decided that if you are too lazy argue with the proper knowledge then I would just allow you to make a fool of yourself. I will reiterate once more for your edification, you cannot have communism without socialism. You can have forms of socialism without necessarily being communist, but you cannot have communism without socialism. Socialism is a precursor of step toward communism. Sanders is a socialist that spent his honeymoon in the USSR. That does not make him a communist, but I am interested in knowing more about his ideology and if it is leaning in that direction. Not that I am interested enough to ever vote for him. Of course not.

You know, the rest of your blather is so totally ridiculous and stupid, that I don't have the patience to instruct you on your totally wrong post.

I will try to explain a bit for you, and hope that someone with more knowledge and patience than myself will further enlighten you.

Property taxes are the same for all home owners in regards to percentage to value ratio. I am not referring to any tax breaks/incentives given to business. And this has nothing to do with personal income taxes that we were supposedly discussing....before you tried to divert from the original post.

We are not a socialist country, even though you might feel that some of our gov run programs are socialist like. Social Security and Medicare were not socialist. If you did not put into SS, you did not receive from SS. Therefore, it is not considered socialism. If you want an example of a socialist type of service, you should have used the public school system.

If you are naive enough to think that the gov gives to the needy better than the Church, then you are really way out in space. I won't even go into that. I will allow someone else to correct you. Like I said, I do not have patience for the blatantly ignorant that refuse to accept correction.

You said that you fought a socialist enemy. Go back at the posts, and look what you said. You are pulling a Trump. You like Trump make an extreme statement. When you get called on it, you tone your statement done or back away from it.

As far as socialism is concerned, try reading this guy.U.S. Socialist Programs That Must Be Stopped At All Costs - 1723 Articles - A Barrel Full of Trivia (http://myfivebest.com/u-s-socialist-programs-that-must-be-stopped-at-all-costs/)

As you can see after reading the article, there are people on the far right that have totally lost their minds.

I am one hellva of a liberal, since I will not be voting for either Clinton, or Sanders. You only think that there are only two schools of political thought conservatives, and liberals. There is a third, moderates. Keep throwing the word "liberal" at me like it is a swear word. If you think that it bothers me, it doesn't. I know what I am.

[Guest]

You said that you fought a socialist enemy. Go back at the posts, and look what you said. You are pulling a Trump. You like Trump make an extreme statement. When you get called on it, you tone your statement done or back away from it.

As far as socialism is concerned, try reading this guy.U.S. Socialist Programs That Must Be Stopped At All Costs - 1723 Articles - A Barrel Full of Trivia (http://myfivebest.com/u-s-socialist-programs-that-must-be-stopped-at-all-costs/)

As you can see after reading the article, there are people on the far right that have totally lost their minds.

I am one hellva of a liberal, since I will not be voting for either Clinton, or Sanders. You only think that there are only two schools of political thought conservatives, and liberals. There is a third, moderates. Keep throwing the word "liberal" at me like it is a swear word. If you think that it bothers me, it doesn't. I know what I am.

I think that you are the one that needs to go back and read the comment. Obviously, you have a reading retention problem.
I am impressed that you found ONE article that you could use in this conversation that might or might not substantiate your position, whatever that may be. I suppose it is to attack and then deny what you are. Whatever. Who cares?
Yes, your words are liberal words. Whether you consider fact based impressions to be an attack on your character is up for you to decide and make a determination. I just say it as I see it. I see your comment as a liberal based ideology, so I call it that. If you see it as a slur, then that is your insecurity, and not my problem.

You talk of two schools of thought politically. I guess you can look at it that way. There used to be two, the Republican party and the Democratic party. There is no Democratic party anymore. It is just called the Democrat party, and soon to be the democrat socialist party. Sanders is a socialist and he is a Democrat socialist. The DNC considers him a member. Yes, Republicans have become moderate to liberal They used to be conservative. We have a few Tea Party members that are still a bit conservative, but overall most of the Republican party is moderate. Many are even RINOs.
I don't even consider Independents as anything more than those that don't want to admit what party ideology they support. They are too embarrassed to admit what they are. They make claim to be able to vote either way. Well, so can I. When you go into that voting booth, you can vote for ANY candidate and even write one in. Independents in most states can't even vote in the primaries. So, they are doing a great disservice to themselves.

Do I think you are a liberal? It doesn't make any difference, does it? But, yes I believe you are probably a closet liberal. The last real Democratic member that I knew was my father. They are gone now, replaced by liberals, progressives, socialists. Slur words? Only if taken that way. I name it as I see it.
Regardless of how you take it, it's not personal. Have a great day, regardless of how you read this.

[Guest]

Yep, I do know what socialism is. Some of us fought them in war. Some DIDN'T.
Hey friend, you do know that Sanders IS a socialist right? And you did watch the Socialist, I mean DNC debate didn't you? Wow, some folks are pretty naive.
How much do you feel is "fair" enough for the rich to pay? They already pay high taxes so that YOU don't. Why do you believe in discrimination? WHY???

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Making anyone pay higher percentage of their income than others is DISCRIMINATION. Sorry, but if you want the rich to pay half their income, then you must pay half your income. And as far as living in a trailer ins concerned, done that. And I did that while supporting a family with children. So, don't try that one on me. I worked three jobs at once to dig myself out of debt. I didn't have a socialist president that gave the OK to walk out on my obligations. And now I am here in the Villages. On top of that, I served my country, before and after I married. So, without further need of justifying my remarks, where do you get off telling me that I don't' know something? I have no idea whether or not you had the guts or patriotism to serve your country. I wouldn't know and won't ask. I don't suggest to you that you haven't lived poor like myself and then raised myself out of it, to later make six figure incomes. But yes, I do scorn those that want to take from someone without permission to give to another. I have no problem if you want to donate your income or time to the needy. That's your choice. But, I do know that if you look at statistics, you will find that most of your large donations to charity are from the conservative wealthy. It's easy for liberals to be charitable with someone else's money. After all, we have more than we need....at least according to you.

"Yep, I do know what socialism is. Some of us fought them in war."

Did you go to school, evidently you didn't learn anything about history.

[Guest]

"Yep, I do know what socialism is. Some of us fought them in war."

Did you go to school, evidently you didn't learn anything about history.

And it is obvious that you have never served your country in any capacity. So, go play with someone else that is down at your level.

[Guest]

And it is obvious that you have never served your country in any capacity. So, go play with someone else that is down at your level.


Typical conservative radical nonsense answer.

[Guest]

Typical conservative radical nonsense answer.

Truth sometimes hurts, right?