Liberals...why?

[rheff78]

It's amazing that you teach classes without learning the facts.

I do believe that's borderline insults. I think that's wheat we were shut down for in the first place. You may want to watch it. And besides I seriously doubt you could get into a debate with me on teaching, you have no common ground. My TAKS scores are at 95% right now. Don't go into that thought process.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hey, you asked. SOrry oyu don't like the answer, but it's my answer none the less. Peace.

You're welcome to your opinion, just don't pretend that you're patriotic or promote freedom.

 

[Autodidact]

they aren't interested in facts....
No, the facts you spouted are fundamentally wrong.

These are lies, and they are about me. Please either substantiate or retract them.

Do you like it when people tell lies about you? Is that how conservative Republicans work?

If they were true, couldn't you easily substantiate them?

 

[rheff78]

Auto, what I've said is not wrong. Get over yourself.
Is that how we work? Do we tell lies? No, of course not. We're perfect. If only you could join us and see the truth and bow at our superiority.
Come on Auto. Don't resort to name calling. Would you like to retract your statements as to my teaching?

 

[Autodidact]

Auto, what I've said is not wrong.

Then it should be easy to substantiate it.

Get over yourself.

(1) It's not really about me, it's about the truth. (2) Your credibility may not be important to you, but mine is to me. You have impugned it. Again, due to forum rules, I am prevented from telling you exactly what I think about that.

Is that how we work? Do we tell lies?

Apparently some of you do.

No, of course not. We're perfect. If only you could join us and see the truth and bow at our superiority.

If only you could be correct in any of your factual allegations, you may have had a prayer of persuading me. By being actually factually incorrect, you have had the opposite effect.

Come on Auto. Don't resort to name calling. Would you like to retract your statements as to my teaching?

Apparently besides not knowing the difference between truth and fiction, you also do not recognize the difference between fact and opinion.

You stated, as a factual allegation, that I had made factual statements that were incorrect. If that were true, I would want to know, so that I can correct them. In fact, it could cause me to change my mind. If it isn't, it's just irresponsible slander.

As for name-calling, what do you call people who make false statements about other people?

 

[Autodidact]

These are lies, and they are about me. Please either substantiate or retract them.

 

[rheff78]

I lied about you? Or I lied about your facts? Those are two different animals. I have never once in this thread lied about you, who you are or what you do. The same cannot be said of you.

 

[Autodidact]

No, the facts you spouted are fundamentally wrong.

This is not complicated, rheff. This is a statement. You made it. It's about me. I have asked you five times to substantiate it. You have failed to do so. I believe that it is false. Now that has been brought to your attention, it cannot be a mere error, it would have to be a deliberate lie.

And now, to compound it, you're accusing me of lying. Now you say that I have told lies about you. Again, can you substantiate this claim? Can you find a single instance of me lying about you? If so, I will cheerfully withdraw my statement, and apologize to you. Can you say the same?

 

[yossarian22]

It seems inanity knows no bounds....

 

[Reverend Rick]

What is clear is that reducing capital gains tax disproportionately benefits wealthy people.

If we raise capital gains taxes, it disproportionately hurts wealthy people as well.

They are the folks who create jobs after all, so when we bring in less revenue, everyone suffers.

Which is more important, fairness or revenue?

 

[Autodidact]

If we raise capital gains taxes, it disproportionately hurts wealthy people as well.

They are the folks who create jobs after all, so when we bring in less revenue, everyone suffers.

Which is more important, fairness or revenue?

I would say actually neither, directly. What is most important is a thriving economy, which benefits everyone. I think we agree on that. Apparently the effect of the capital gains tax on the economy is unclear, or so the economists* tell us. What is clear is who it benefits/harms.

*btw, don't you also agree that in general economists differ, don't know what they're talking about, are full of unverifiable opinions and the like. If only economics worked, we'd have less disagreement, I think.

My goal with economic policy is not fairness for its own sake, but what benefits the economy as a whole. Right now the economy is tanking. Although it's hard to tell all of the reasons, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Bush administration policies were at least a contributing factor. What I'm more worried about is the long term impact of accumulating more and more debt with no plan to pay it off. Eventually the bill comes due.

I don't have a problem with cutting taxes; I think it's great. But for every tax you cut, you need to show me what spending program you're going to cut.
I don't have a problem with some government programs, if they look like a good long term investment. But for every program you want to institute, you need to show me what tax you're going to raise to pay for it, or how it is going to pay for itself in the reasonable future. What I have a problem with is Bushonomics; cutting taxes while increasing spending. It's fun, but it doesn't work in the long run. And that is why I don't think reasonable people can support the Republican party anymore. Maybe once upon a time, but not since they've lost their collective minds to the neo-cons and religious nuts.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Why do you support the democratic party this election? I mean come on. Universal healthcare? Ok, taxes will be raised 60% for us to cover this and the level of care we get will diminish greatly. The war in Iraq? Ok, the troops are coming home in 1 year anyway. Illegal immigration? Ok, are you willing to support welfare for these people with your own social security? Seriously, why?

Let me count the ways:

1. The Republican leadership is mean spirited
2. The Republican leadership is immoral
3. The Republican leadership lies to the American people
4. The Republican leadership loves war. It exists to propagate war.
5. The Republican leadership is only out to improve itself: not the country.
6. The Republican leadership is out of touch with reality
7. The Republican leadership is unethical
8. The Republican leadership supports racism
9. The Republican leadership is opposed to free speech
10. The Republican leadership is ooposed to equal rights

I could go on and on, but thought I should stop at ten.

 

[Autodidact]

I would add 11., Pete: Republican policies are bad for the economy.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would add 11., Pete: Republican policies are bad for the economy.

Amen brother.

The whole OP really begs the question>>>

Who in their right mind would VOTE for these liars who are intent on pushing us to oblivion in the name of war and progress?

The best I can see right now, is that a vote for McCain is a vote for continued war and a deepening depression. We have a far better chance with either Hillary or Barack! Let's hope they make 01.20.2009 America's liberation day!

 

[Autodidact]

And 12. Republicans demonstrate a disrespectful disregard for the Constitution. That's a very important issue for me; I wish that it was for more Americans, who IMO fail to value what is most unique and precious about our country.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And 12. Republicans demonstrate a disrespectful disregard for the Constitution. That's a very important issue for me; I wish that it was for more Americans, who IMO fail to value what is most unique and precious about our country.

I kinda covered that in #10. They give rights to corporations by taking away rights from actual people. Look what they have given to Haliburton. They got their own private war to support! Lucky bassirds!

 

[Autodidact]

I'm really referring very basic constitutional concepts, such as the separation of powers, role of Congress s. the President, even the rule of law. More than one Republican President has asserted that "it's not illegal when the President does it." That's a very fundamentally un-American attitude. Basically the revolution was fought in large part so that all men (people) would be subject to the rule of law, including the President. Even if the Republicans handled the economy well, this is so fundamental for me that it's sufficient in itself to turn me against a Republican administration. I guess for me to vote for a Republican for President they' would have to show me that they opposed this position by their words and deeds. For example, a Republican who had sponsored impeachment of Bush/Cheney would get my interest.

 

[Scuba Pete]

a Republican who had sponsored impeachment of Bush/Cheney would get my interest.

They would also be assassinated. If not physically, then politically. That they are mean was my first issue with the Republican Leadership.

I do believe this all started with Nixon's abuse of power. That was probably Ford's only mistake was to pardon him BEFORE all the dirt came to light. Expediency is rarely a friend of truth or the American way.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, since Nixon demonstrated his basic contempt for our American system of justice, I really can't support any Republican who doesn't take a firm stand against that position. And Bush is just as bad; unfortunately Congress doesn't have even as much integrity as it did then.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yes, since Nixon demonstrated his basic contempt for our American system of justice, I really can't support any Republican who doesn't take a firm stand against that position. And Bush is just as bad; unfortunately Congress doesn't have even as much integrity as it did then.

I think Shrub has surpassed Nixon in his utter contempt for the law and ETHICS. Haliburton's War is the perfect example of this kind of pandering to special interests that seems to mark the entire party.