Cone_Junky wrote: So only conservatives have valid protests? Tea Party anyone?
They get the same treatment around here. I give them the finger every time I pass. All five of them.
Cone_Junky wrote: So only conservatives have valid protests? Tea Party anyone?
They get the same treatment around here. I give them the finger every time I pass. All five of them.
N Sperlo wrote:Osterkraut wrote:Thats what some called themselves before they realized the mistake.Cone_Junky wrote: Oh wait, they did and then Fox "News" mocked and ridiculed them for being entitled bums.Right, like the term "tea baggers" isn't full of mockery and ridicule.
No it isn't. Thats what Anderson Copper called us.
ThePhranc wrote:N Sperlo wrote:No it isn't. Thats what Anderson Copper called us.Osterkraut wrote:Thats what some called themselves before they realized the mistake.Cone_Junky wrote: Oh wait, they did and then Fox "News" mocked and ridiculed them for being entitled bums.Right, like the term "tea baggers" isn't full of mockery and ridicule.
No, it is. I splaned it to him. Ever try splanin' tea bagging to a 55 year old?
z31maniac wrote:Cone_Junky wrote: There were thousands of protestors, a couple of bad apples doesn't make the point invalid. Yet the Conservative media machine (borrowed that from the repugsYou obivously didn't even read the link, or completely missed the point. The point was not that protestors were arrested, it's that the vast majority of those who were arrested live SIGNIFICANTLY above the avg. Kinda hard to claim your the 99% when your measureably more well off than average.) deemed them losers. In fact there was literally two sides to the protestors in the park in NY. Hippies on one side and middle class/educated on the other. What side did Fox "News" make all thier broadcasts from? So only conservatives have valid protests? Tea Party anyone?
No I didn't read your link, it wasn't there when I wrote my post. But if it as you just described, it makes my point even more valid. The media only wanted show the jobless/homeless. If there were people better off then me protesting for me, that's awesome. Even if they are on the top half of the 99%, they are still part of it.
So.... does Cone_Junky always toe the party line so closely?
The "99%" did not even come CLOSE to representing me.
N Sperlo wrote:ThePhranc wrote:No, it is. I splaned it to him. Ever try splanin' tea bagging to a 55 year old?N Sperlo wrote:No it isn't. Thats what Anderson Copper called us.Osterkraut wrote:Thats what some called themselves before they realized the mistake.Cone_Junky wrote: Oh wait, they did and then Fox "News" mocked and ridiculed them for being entitled bums.Right, like the term "tea baggers" isn't full of mockery and ridicule.
Yes. My mom asked what was funny about tea bagging. 
In reply to 93EXCivic:
And thats when you called your gall in to demonstrate.
Too far?
Cone_Junky wrote:z31maniac wrote:No I didn't read your link, it wasn't there when I wrote my post. But if it as you just described, it makes my point even more valid. The media only wanted show the jobless/homeless. If there were people better off then me protesting for me, that's awesome. Even if they are on the top half of the 99%, they are still part of it.Cone_Junky wrote: There were thousands of protestors, a couple of bad apples doesn't make the point invalid. Yet the Conservative media machine (borrowed that from the repugsYou obivously didn't even read the link, or completely missed the point. The point was not that protestors were arrested, it's that the vast majority of those who were arrested live SIGNIFICANTLY above the avg. Kinda hard to claim your the 99% when your measureably more well off than average.
No, they weren't better off, their parents are. Most places consider you to have abandoned your job, and you lose it, after 3 no shows.
So going for a few months to protest means you didn't have a job, but come from a more well off family. Maybe upset that Philosophy degree isn't going to pay them like Dad's Engineering degree will? (I have a Philo minor, hehe)
Look, I completely agree with the disgust of money in policitcs, corporate welfare, etc. But I listened to a lot of those protestors, and most of them were so woefully uneducated and lacking facts as to discredit their anger.
Since I don't watch cable "news" I haven't been told what the party line is. I follow my values, so I guess that is "towing the party line" as much as the people I am debating with.
Some peole just like to get their news from NPR and BBC so we have more information and can make our own opinions. They have never told me how I am supposed to think.
Xceler8x wrote: "The congressional impasse over extending the payroll tax cut became a showdown Tuesday between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner." I guess Congressional Republicans just don't like raising taxes on The Wealthy? I guess that no raising taxes pledge had an out on people making less than $250k a year. Anyway, enjoy paying $1000 more in taxes this year thanks to Boehner and the controlling Republicans in Congress.
Fail for disingenuous thread title.
If the Democrats defense of their position for increasing tax revenue by letting previous tax cuts expire isnt called a tax increase, then the Republicans doing the same thing isn't a tax increase either.
Also, Obama's administration has also been more than happy to let the same tax cuts expire just to make sure those evil rich pay more taxes than before.... until the Whitehouse saw the poll numbers that session. They changed their tune pretty quick.
....something tells me thats the same reason they threw in this ridiculous 2 month extension of the cuts instead of the year long. It was a last-ditch effort to make sure the rich pay more taxes by any means, because most of the bonuses to income the 'rich' accumulate come after the first quarter.
Cone_Junky wrote: Since I don't watch cable "news" I haven't been told what the party line is. I follow my values, so I guess that is "towing the party line" as much as the people I am debating with. Some peole just like to get their news from NPR and BBCA so we have more information and can make our own opinions. They have never told me how I am supposed to think.
FTFY
In reply to madmallard:
I don't think the rich are evil, but I think they should pay three same percentage as me.
In reply to N Sperlo:
do you believe people poorer than you should also pay the same percentage as you?
In reply to N Sperlo:
Not that it really makes a difference, but I stream online, so I get BBC and BBCA.
Just like I stream/download from BBC UK so that I get to watch Top Gear 3 months before other Americans
madmallard wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: do you believe people poorer than you should also pay the same percentage as you?
Absolutely.
N Sperlo wrote:madmallard wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: do you believe people poorer than you should also pay the same percentage as you?Absolutely.
Agreed. Subsidizing people to have kids is bullE36 M3 for the rest of us that decided to not have them. If you are collecting welfare, you should not be popping out kids. Period. Child tax credits, etc should all be knocked out. Everyone pays a flat percentage across the board. EVERYONE.
Cone_Junky wrote: Hippies on one side and middle class/educated on the other. What side did Fox "News" make all thier broadcasts from? So only conservatives have valid protests? Tea Party anyone?
If the Occupy folks and the Tea Party folks would shut up and stop pointing fingers at each other for 5 minutes, they would realize that they are the same people.
In reply to N Sperlo:
you've got your work cut out for you, then. Almost half of the people after credits don't pay any federal income tax. Its been that way in some measure before W. took office.
Also, the income tax was passed originally on a promise that only a few rich people would EVER pay it to begin with. you've got 100 years of thinking to undo...
DILYSI Dave wrote:Cone_Junky wrote: Hippies on one side and middle class/educated on the other. What side did Fox "News" make all thier broadcasts from? So only conservatives have valid protests? Tea Party anyone?If the Occupy folks and the Tea Party folks would shut up and stop pointing fingers at each other for 5 minutes, they would realize that they are the same people.
They were at one time
Then the media got ahold of both of them and politized them.
z31maniac wrote: Yeah, who wants to make energy more easily available while creating tens of thousands of jobs in an economy with 11%+ REAL unemployment.
Pipeline might be a good thing. I dunno. But isn't this exactly the kind of thing the Tea folk campaigned against? Why is this an important part of a tax bill, but everything any Democrat ever attached to a bill is "pork". Little bit o' pot calling the kettle black, seems to me.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that's just kinda how it works. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. But the Democrats didn't raise hell about it in the last couple of campaigns. It does make you think they're being a little hypocritical.
madmallard wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: you've got your work cut out for you, then. Almost half of the people after credits don't pay any federal income tax. Its been that way in some measure before W. took office. Also, the income tax was passed originally on a promise that only a few rich people would EVER pay it to begin with. you've got 100 years of thinking to undo...
Then someone berkeleyed up and it needs to be fixed by those guys who keep ignoring their jobs.
aussiesmg wrote:tuna55 wrote: OK, ready for the solution? A postcard (E-mail, whatever) gets mailed to every household. "You are eligible for the following political office, do you wish to run?" You check the box for the one you're interested in, write a short essay and do a Q&A booklet and send it back. Everything gets published online for 30 days. People vote for their top ten. The winningest ten become the candidates. Those are all given equal airtime by law and equal debate opportunities. They are not allowed to raise money in any way.I cant believe I agree with Tuna, but I do 100%
Uhmm.
Thank... you... ??
??
In reply to tuna55:
So should I or should I not agree? I'm discombobulated.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Don't get me wrong, I understand that's just kinda how it works. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. But the Democrats didn't raise hell about it in the last couple of campaigns. It does make you think they're being a little hypocritical.
No one raised hell about it until the E36M3 hit the fan.
When that happened, one approach was to elect people who would oppose the process; another approach was to camp-out in front of video cameras and office buildings and a third (more common) approach was to ignore everything.
Sadly, the only approach that works to change "the system" is the one that is maligned the most.
oldsaw wrote: Sadly, the only approach that works to change "the system" is the one that is maligned the most.
Armed rebellion?
You'll need to log in to post.
