Conservatism = Sociopathic Behavior
- Thread starter Johnfromokc
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
122Replies
-
2KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Johnfromokc
Active Member
You mean like even less regulation and less taxation of the wealthiest? That's what got us here. Do you really believe more of the same will yield a different result?
You mean like fighting two unfunded wars and borrowing money to pay for them while lowering taxes on the wealthies Americans and giving corporations subsidies on top of allowing them to pay no tax at all? And then blaming our problems on social programs?
Can you not see the insanity?
What part of corruption and reform didn't you understand?
Sure they have.
I've even seen you post else where where you proudly proclaim a socialist position.
And I pointed out how you cherry picked those scenarios.
Situations that didn't start with impending economic failure.
Presenting reality isn't hypocrisy.
And it's corruption and funding issues that I present along with sustainability.
If either system fails ( SS/MC ), I get no benefit.
If either fail, it's from an economic issue on a scale that affect all involved in that economy.
If you are insinuating that I'm arguing for my own increased benefits, you need to show it rather then repetitively running off your mouth with verbal diarrhea.
Ah...personal attacks.
This would apply to you at this time:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
Usually happens out of desperation :cool
You don't agree that corruption is a major issue?
I'll bet you posted many comments about corruption under the Bush administration.
Wouldn't you then be the hypocrite for attacking me on the same ?
Of course you would.
More ad hominem attacks :tooth
Ever try debating a topic using logic as a format ?
OK....let's run with your last comment.
Why do you think a corrupt socialist economic system would be any better than a corrupt capitalist system ?
( personally....I don't see much benefit to either position, but you seem to be taking me to task for my comments on corruption )
Think his agreement on reform needed is a serious point.....most Republicans would just quit talking to ya !!!!
Johnfromokc
Active Member
I have no clue what his idea for "reform" might be. Simply stating "Reform is needed" means nothing. Constantly critcizing ideas that have been successfully implimented in other countries is ridiculous. That's all I've seen him post thus far. I'm not impressed.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you wrote that people here are not politically motivated, meaning not interested. My bad.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
I mean (again) like get politicians out of corporate pockets and corporate lobbyists out of Washington. Stop gov't manipulation of the market to block new enterprise and insulate established corporations from risk.
You're the only guy I know that can make agreement look like an attack. ... And it's THREE unfunded wars, not just two.
Indeed
Elimination of corruption, mostly.
The concept of reform being a change for the better to eliminate abuses of power and define justice as an equal right.
You only seem to address act of distributing wealth as a solution....not the degree/grade of access to it.
I purposefully brought this up in my post referring to Nader's commentary on Corporate Socialism.
Here's the link again:
http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html
He makes a lot of points that have led us to the problems we have.......but it's not exclusive.
Again....you cherry picked examples that instituted those social programs. They hadn't experienced the economic calamity that the US is struggling out of.
It's illogical to expect what is successful for one is identical for another with such serious contrasts of affordability as the US currently has.
Try approaching from a position of pragmatism rather than political dogma.
So far, I've seen little debate from you, John.
A lot of political rhetoric with exclamations of denial, though.
Sometimes I read your posts where taxes are to be increased on those making a million$ a year or more and then back up and lower the bar to $105,000.
You seem to forget what you've posted elsewhere and it trips you up.
That's not impressive at all.
Johnfromokc
Active Member
And further deregulation? That's what I assume you mean by "Stop gov't manipulation of the market". Regulations are necessary to keep the corps from screwing over small business and consumers. We see what Wall Street did with deregulation.
That's just your perception. Can't help that.
Check your PM box in a minute. Got an off topic question for ya.
Johnfromokc
Active Member
Could you be a little more ambiguous?
Thats because you are not paying attention to what I've posted because you are too intent to rush through to your next rambling critcism with no solutions.
Try paying attention. You call your lack of solutions and defeatist attitude pragmatic? Really?
I put forth ideas. You criticize. You speak in generalities. You contradict yourself. You don't pay attention. And you say you see no debate from me? I'm not surprised.
That was about Social Security taxes. I have always stated that taxes should be raised on AGI's of $250,000 or more. The millionaire surtax is a different issue.
Please pay attention - this shit is getting old. Have you been checked for dementia and alzheimer's? Might as well spend my Medicare tax dollars to get yourself properly diagnosed and treated.
I could try.
You haven't posted anything new of any noteworthy value.
I have asked questions of you to better understand your position, but it's the same line....socialism is the solution...... over and over.
Cripes....all you have posted is repetition and I find it difficult to add much more than what has already been addressed.
Again with the ad hominems.
How long have you been getting away with this?
Surely someone has called you on it before?
Yes, I do....
I see stupidity in them.
I often do.....does that upset you?
If I were to play the role of a 'conservobot' as you keep trying to infer....sure.
But I am addressing reality while you discus 'pie in the sky'.
I've already outed you on issues of who you see for potential tax increases.
And it's not just the very wealthy. $105,000 is more like upper middle class.
Very little.
You seldom respond to even the questions I throw your way.
See what I mean about contradictions?
Big one there.
And your post on Medicare was increased taxation on those above $105,000.
But you argue that the very wealthy are proportionally responsible for the success of our society.
And yet you dip into the upper middle class to meet revenue needs.
Because you argue for support of the middle class at the expense of the very wealthy......it's disingenuous to be taxing an element of the middle class into a lower economic position.
They would logically become next in need in your socialist scheme.
Please, John.....do a little critical thinking ....it might improve your arguments....or convince you otherwise
Frustrated so soon? :tooth
And yet....you posted nothing of value in that entire post :clap
here is something to learn.....copy and paste it in your browser....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=all
here is something to learn.....copy and paste it in your browser....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=all
you posted that same link in another thread.
My response is here
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?81255-Socialism-for-Dummies&p=2077119&viewfull=1#post2077119
I know ...lol ...just to make sure you read it and learn something.....sorry could not resist ....:jk
Johnfromokc
Active Member
LOL. That was funny, but probably lost on Stone. I doubt he is even aware if the original loan.
It didn't turn out that well for the Dutch the first time, why would you risk it again?
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members