And you all never engage in that activity.

I know. Aren't we good?

Once again missing the point
 

I fail to see the attack on you personally. No mention of that anywhere. I have no doubt you worked hard to get where you are. I also made no mention that corporations shouldn't pay taxes. Yes, corps. are taxed and that is added to their expenses as a cost of doing business, and ultimately passed on to the consumer. On a smaller scale, if you are gong to the store and a friend asks you to pick something up for them, say $20, do you just get your $20 back and pay the tax yourself? Maybe once in a while. But on a regular basis, you'll ask for the tax you paid too.
Glad you got a chuckle from that, no, I realize Obama was not in office yet, but, he was in the senate before he got promoted 'above his pay grade' (a perfect example of the 'Peter Principle') and when not campaiging, could vote (other than present) on proposals affecting financial regulation. A minor role, obviously, but his other ties and positions he held several places bother me more. I also notice you make no defense for Frank and Dodd.
Let's forget about the POTUS for a moment and look back. The only power of the office is in the Veto power and the 'bully pulpit'. Congress determines how much and where to spend. Repubs were NOT handed a surplus in '94. Major strains on the economy were 9/11, Katrina, followed by a war on terror, whatever your feelings on that war, all expensive but didn't require 2,000 page, unread 'porkulous' bills that cost trillions, to be passed. Snow is not exactly a shining example of a fiscally conservative republican. Only says what she needs to, to get elected. I am worried that Brown may move in that direction also. I have NO respect for ANY politician that does not stand by his/her principles. I disagree with Feingold but respect him for holding firm to his principles. Yes, Repubs failed to hold to their principles and that is what elections are for. (Term limits come to mind) Both sides are responsible for the current mess and it's time to clean house.
Remember, none of this is to be construed as an attack on you, personally but simply a discourse on our differing views. If we present facts and not rhetoric, we are both richer for the experience.

Boy this thread really has you riled doesn't it. As my teachers always said "The truth hurts". You're going a little off the wall here.

Don't try to put words in my mouth or twist the words I do utter. I said exactly who I meant. Look up the history of the rise of Mussolini and see if the fascist/socialist state he created isn't eerily similar to was is incrementally being created right here in our country.

I pretty sure who you were referring to in your post, but I think the last time I heard that name it was by your friends referring to the former president.

P.S. Wait!!, I must be nuts. You see the correlation in the Mussolini and Obama regimes? Sorry; I just realized what I was asking.

From your orginal post Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Why shouldn't Corporations pay taxes? The Supreme Court just made them people a few weeks ago....Let them be taxed. I didn't defend Dodd because he has no defense....however Frank is just another Republican punching bag....lets attack the gay guy. Frank wasn't chairman of the committee as long as the Repubs were. But I am glad you also admit that the Repubs surely were not fiscal conservitives. But Clinton did leave a surplus.... Protested the war.

I agree and have said many times there is blame enough to go around.....

I too enjoy a good debate.

And that is why you can't utter that name...

So I have a question....if you are so against Socialist things how do you feel about the non-funded multi-billion dollar entitlement Medicare prescription drug program.

Nope just hypocrits as this post proves.

You mean it would be OK to attack him if he was straight? You guys always hiding behind cards.(race, color, sexual orientation,etc. etc.)

Not to belabor a point....
 

At NO point did I advocate not taxing corporations. What the point of the statement is, is that taxing a corporation or business does not have the same effect on them as it does on the individual. When business gets taxed, they simply figure that into the cost of doing business and raise prices accordingly to maintain a reasonable profit. If that cost becomes prohibitive, they simply stop doing business. How does that help the consumer? As far as Frank is concerned, or anyone else, I don't care if they are gay, straight, Vulcan, Klingon or Ferengi as long as they are honorable persons. Frank's problem is not his personal preferences but the fact that he is a complete IDIOT. He was the one to come out shortly before the 'meltdown' to assure us that "everything is fine, nothing to see here."
We also have quote 'ringing in our ears' too. Can you honestly be proud of "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." ?

To name a name means I would have to be reading your mind. I, unlike you, try not to assume too much.

I don't want to live in a Socialist Bureauacracy. I don't was my President to admire the government of Venezeula.

You are the ones you do the attacking.....

But you didn't answer the question.....

You got to be kidding me. . Frank doesn't get the fraction of the attacks that your party gives Palin or Bush, for that matter.

If you follow the string of posts here my point was that both sides employ attack politics and hate speech. Now with this post you agree.

I was only responding about your charges that republicans were attacking a gay guy. (your words)
".however Frank is just another Republican punching bag....lets attack the gay guy. "

Attacks
 

True, as far as you take it. There are a few minor differences in the attacks though. For the most part, the conservative attacks focus on undesireable actions such as lies, criminal activities, and questionable actions or tactics. The 'Hate' speech is focused on hating what is being done to the country or system. The far-left seems to focus more on personal things such as looks, beliefs, race, family and labels. The most extreme examples that come to mind are the T.E.A. party events and what actually happens at them and how they are reported on, by the liberal media as opposed to events such as the protests at the G-20 conference, liberal demonstrations at campuses, etc. Would you care to clarify your definition of 'Hate Speech' and 'Rascist speech' ? I really am interested.

Sorry...that is just spin. All you have to do is look at some of the things posted in this forum. Hate Speech, for example only would be to call someone a Fag, Queer etc. and I don't need to use the word for Racist speech. In this string someone said, in response to a poster, "I think someone needs a hug" that was labeled as liberal hate speech.

I find the TEA party events to be very scary and hate filled....just take a look at the signs and guns. But the G-20 demos scare you...sometimes I think that liberals get painted with the board brush of anarchists. Many of the protesters in Seattle were actually anarchists......


In my opinion the either party looks the other way or rationalizes any untruths but then sounds the alarm when they think the other party has lied.

So for example I think Clinton lied about having sex and I also think that GW Bush lied about WMD and the War on Terror. So what do you think?

Spin?
 

Since we are discussing opinions and not facts, I definitely agree that there is a lot of spin, however, I believe we differ greatly on where the spin is coming from. As far as postings go in the forum, those that are posted without FACTS to back them up are nothing more than personal OPINIONS. We are still free to have our OWN opinions, no matter what the facts are. (Not defending anyone, just saying) The 'hug' comment was an inappropriate, patronizing response to the poster. If you want to see real hate speech, go to some of the links provided by WayneT to back up his arguments. The posters are personal, vulgar and crude.
Do you find the T.E.A. parties scary from personal experience or from information provided by the unbiased, liberal press and news outlets? My PERSONAL experience has been very positive. (we have attended several events and meetings) I enjoy reading the creative signs and some of the costumes. I would feel safer at one of these events with dozens of people exercising their right to open carry than I would in some areas of large cities. (and even some small ones) At NO time have I heard 'Hate speech', racial or ethnic slurs. The "HATE" is directed at policies that infringe on our rights and freedoms. The only 'hate' expressed around these rallies came from a handful of people (at a safe distance fortunately for us) that were trying to protest the rally. After being ignored, they finally slunk off. Yes, the G-20 and similar demonstrations scare me. Only used that as a recent example. I have a distinct aversion to having rocks bounced off my admittedly (some say) hard head and being beaten into submission by peace-loving protesters with their signs. I don't understand why a protest is license to destroy property and harm those who don't agree with your views.
As for Clinton and Bush, never thought I would look sort of fondly on the Clinton era (compared to the current one) and IF Bush lied I think it was because of faulty intelligence gathered from multiple sources which fooled the entire free world. Hardest thing in the world to prove is a negative. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that, with the amount of time Saddam had, that he couldn't have moved them. Again, you asked what I think. Back to you.......

How many Tea Parties have you attended? I bet your just repeating your sources who try to belittle the Tea Partiers by referring to them with sexual slurs.

I saw the HUG thing completely differently....the sad thing with the electronic age is we are really unable to tell, for the most part, the intent of the poster. So I took it at face value. I did meet some TEA party people and they did scare me....all the yelling, taking over meetings to what end? And the signs.....the guns. Guns scare me big time.

I have been to several anti-war protests all peaceful...no rock throwing.

As I have 3 nephews in the service, one has been to the war zone 5 times winning the purple heart on his Th tour, I expect the President to only use the troops in defense of the United States. I struggle with the Afghan war as the 9/11 attacks came from there...but there was no excuse to invade a country that did NOT attack us. I still say both Bush and his administration totally lied in the run up to the war and all through out the 8 years...leaving the current administration holding the bag.

You don't like the main stream media and I think Fox Noise is a mouth piece for the Republican party. I mainly watch Morning Joe, PBS Evening News and Rachel Maddow. Today I took in about 1 hour a Fox Noise just to check in.

Just to keep it real, the other major networks are mouth pieces for the Democratic party. That's about 5 to 1.

Lied about what?

Hey!!!; the point of this post was my dismay at having to pony up big bucks in January when the tax cuts sunset.

I'm thinking, if Cologal is representative of the Libs, than the Libs could agree to pay the renewed tax burden, that she so ardently wants reinstated, while the rest of us continue to benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts.

We'll keep calling it the Bush Tax Cuts as that will influence the Libs to continue to treat them with disdain. We can even agree to consider ourselves "losers" for agreeing to continue in a program named after the horrid former President.

This is my bi-partisan solution to give everyone what they want. What could be fairer?

More ramblings....
 

Even at face value I still felt that it wasn't an appropriate response and did nothing to advance the topic or discussion.
Moving on.....It sounds like you happened to be at one of the 'Town Hall' events, rather than a TEA party event. Those events have had a history of degenerating into shouting matches when people, who are upset because their representatives are ignoring their input, are talked down to or have fun made of their concerns and ridiculed for their concern. The make-up of the TEA parties is truly bi-partisian, both racial and political. (actually more than bi-. All parties and races) All are citizens concerned about the way things are going. As for the signs, I really get a kick out of the creativity, except for the 'fringe kooks' that EVERY group seems to attract. Accept those for what, or who, they are. Guns scare the he** out of a lot of people and, rightly so, when in the hands of idiots, incompetents, young children and those who want to settle a grudge. Any sane person would be scared in that situation. I have no problem when in the hands, or holster, of someone who respects AND fears the power of that gun.
I realize that ALL protests don't degenerate into violence but, since NONE of the news services spend much time on peaceful gatherings, a disproportionate amount of protests are reported on when it happens. Look at what happens when a sports team has a major accomplishment. "Let's all get drunk and go burn something and break windows". That's not political, just human stupidity.
To your nephews...Thank them for their service and sacrifice. Very proud of them. A Purple Heart is not given out lightly. I hope that he is OK. My son and his wife are both Marines. My son was in Iraq for a short time and thankfully did not encounter any problems. My service was USAF stationed at a SAC base with B-52's and Atlas missiles. Although everyone wants to focus on the WMD problem, the AQ training camps were there and were being supported by the regime. Personally, if I were POTUS I would probably lie to the press and congress as long as I could, because they don't have the sense to KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT on matters of national security. In WWII reporters were on the battlefield with the troops and knew enough to hold their stories until after the action was over.
Someone on TOTV has a quote by Mark Twain that I like, "If you don't read the papers, you're uninformed. If you do read the papers, you're mis-informed". If you're only exposed to one opinion or one side of an argument, you have no basis in fact to form your own opinion. How effective would our court system be if only the defense or prosecution were allowed to present their case? Given only one set of facts, a jury or judge would have a very hard time making an informed decision. As far as FOX being an 'arrm of the Republican Party', that seems to me to be a bit of a reach. In the NEWS segments, I see the stories being presented fairly straightforward without biased commentary. The OPINION shows on the other hand strongly lean conservative. There are liberals on the shows and they identify themselves from time to time. Stossel calls himself libertarian, Colmes is very liberal, Sean calls himself a conservative, Greta says she is liberal. Point being, no matter their leanings, they try to present both sides to the viewers, in the stories and the interviews. I am curious about the hour of Fox you watched. Was it a straight hour or hit and run during the day. Makes a difference on reaching an opinion.
Enough rambling for now and sorry to be so long-winded but I hate one-line 'zingers'. (except in jest)

Sorry Rich
 

Didn't mean to Hi-jack your thread. Just got carried away having a dialogue instead of trading one-line 'zingers'. ....but i digress....
On one of the shows, probably Sean's, I liked the solution that was suggested. If you don't think the government is getting enough of your money, nobody is stopping you from writing a check to the IRS. I don't believe the IRS was flooded with checks from kind, compassionate liberals, unless they got it from their conservative neighbors. :p

I won't even comment about your paranoia regarding the MSM...you perceive a problem because you believe the reporters to have a liberal bias.

Lied about what.... "We Do Not Torture" "Yellow Cake in *****" "Weapons of Mass Distruction"

The nephew with the Purple Heart is a Marine..... And a nut job pulled a gun out on me when I asked him to stop throwing rocks at a dog. Scared the crap out of me.

Richie....

I am really confused these tax cuts were enacted to encourage growth and create jobs. We should be able to agree, given the current situation they failed to do what they were supposed to do. What purpose do they have now? Let's forget about the last 8 years...lets just talk about the last year have these tax cuts helped to encourage growth or create jobs? I think not.

Agree. Obama has lied so much it would be easier to tell his truths, which are far and few.

You can't have tax cuts and outrageous spending and expect the tax cuts to work. You must be fiscally responsible which means cut taxes and curb spending together. The government can't continue to spend the money generated by the tax cuts (and more) and expect things to pick up.

But the speaker of the house says that paying people to do nothing stimulates the economy.

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the New York Times: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the Washington Post: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on NBC Nightly News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on ABC World News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving the Obama administration redefining the space agency’s mission to feature outreach to Muslim countries, your response would be, “Huh?” Among all the news these distinguished outlets have seen fit to cover in recent days, the NASA story has not made the cut.

Your point is nonsense. The fact is that job creation has plummeted on Obama's watch. Bush had the aftermath of 9/11 and the prosecution of the War on Terror and still the economy moved along with the help of the Tax Cuts with unemployment steady around 4%. Steady, meaning jobs were created because the work force is constantly expanding.
When the banks busted, due to their abandonment of of tested lending principles demanded under duress by the Democratic Banking Committee in Bush's last year, he succumbed to trying what his enemies were demanding with the TARP.
With the election of this anti-capitalist President our economy has plummeted with few businesses in their right mind expanding while our country is dismantled. The deficit has TRIPLED in 18 months under this increasingly Socialist Regime and the re-organization of our way of life in under way.
Business is pulling it's head into it's shell until this war on them is over.
Please wake up.

But who cares.....its not an outreach to Muslim terrorists that would be news. I saw the story somewhere, and I don't normally watch Fox, so the Director said he was trying to raise awareness of the role of Muslims in Space Exploration. What heck is wrong with that? I think its silly but it NOT something to get my short in a twist about. Which is exactly what Fox is all about.

Now you are being silly....Barney did it. Right.

Short and to the point.
 

BK, wish I could make a point in so few words. :clap2:
CG; A good business plan makes plans for the future. When the tax cuts were put in place, businesses could plan on lower costs and expand, creating jobs for themselves and others, who supplied them. This DID happen. When major elections take place, a wait and see attitude prevails and they may put their plans on hold until things shake out. In the last 1 1/2 years, businesses have had to revise plans to take into account massive increases to the cost of doing business. Expansion, except where absolutely necessary, is the first to go. Next you cut costs by trimming fat and convenience. If none of that works, you go out of business. I believe one of the reasons the number of jobs lost may be declining is that we're running out of jobs we can lose.

Tsk, tsk
 

CG I expect better than that from you. :jester:

You're finally putting together the pieces; I'm proud of you!!

:BigApplause: Too funny!!!

Lets see.....when exactly were the tax cuts put in place....certainly not 1.5 years ago. Now I will bashed for this but what the heck this most likely is my last post on this forum cause its not worth my time anymore.

So the tax cuts went in and the Republican Congress went on spending spree which included 2 unfunded wars and 1 major expansion of the Medicare entitlement program. GW Bush NEVER vetoed a spending bill until the Dems got into power. And yet its all the Dems fault. If you believe Richie its Barney Franks fault....he caused all those failed mortgages. He personally bundled them up rated triple A, when they were junk and them sold...Making millions of profit for himself.

I have said repeatly there is enough blame to go around for this financial crisis but on this forum that seems not to be the case. You all have fun.

cologal, I think both parties need to learn fiscal restraint. I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Correct me if I'm wrong. But haven't the Democrats been in the majority since the 2006 general elections?

Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted nearly unanimously for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists against "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States" in Afghanistan in 2001, supporting the NATO coalition invasion of the nation.

Most Democrats holding office still support the Afghanistan conflict, and some, such as a Democratic National Committee spokesperson Tim Kaine, have said that the Iraq War shifted too many resources away from the presence in Afghanistan.