Romney's Tax Returns Held Ransom?

[CosmicBills]

You said I pointed out the difference between the extremes. So assume I somehow pointed out the extreme right believes it only takes hard work. So did I miss your point or did you fail to make a good one?

Both.

[WorldTraveller]

No. The extreme belief is that all it takes is hard work. Work hard and no matter what soon enough you'll be rich -- and if you don't get rich it's because you didn't work hard enough.

 

Hold on a second, that's not what was said.

 

Chef said:

 

What's wrong with supporting an incentive? I don't begrudge their wealth my desire us to joint their ranks as should yours.

 

You actually think these are real??

 

Then Koolaid said:

 

 

This.

 

I'm not rich or wealthy yet just middle class Someday I want to be very well off and I'm trying to WORK my way there. I'm not jealous of others success but rather want to join them. That is what makes America.

 

You should not be penalized and discouraged from hardwork and success.

 

Then you said:

 

There it is

 

Chef and Kool Aid pointed out the fundamental difference between both extremes on the right and left: "I'm not rich yet but one day I will be."

 

The extreme right believes everyone gets what they deserve -- so if you work hard enough you'll eventually join the "rich" club.

 

The extreme left believes that notion is a mirage and that the system is rigged to prevent equal opportunity for success.

 

 

Then When I asked you why you considered it to be "extreme"

 

you responded with:

 

No. The extreme belief is that all it takes is hard work. Work hard and no matter what soon enough you'll be rich -- and if you don't get rich it's because you didn't work hard enough.

 

 

Where did they say or imply "That ALL it takes is hard work"?

 

or "Work hard and no matter what soon enough you'll be rich -- and if you don't get rich it's because you didn't work hard enough."

 

I'll tell you where, no where.

 

You see, you just added that in there, it wasn't stated or even implied. It was mentioned as a component of what it takes to try to get there.

 

All Kool aid said was "Im trying to work my way there"

 

You're wrong on this one, and I'll argue that what was "extreme" was your perception of his statement.

 

 

 

On a sidenote, I love deconstructing arguments like this

Edited September 7, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[Chef Jim]

Hold on a second, that's not what was said.

 

Chef said:

 

 

 

Then Koolaid said:

 

 

 

 

Then you said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then When I asked you why you considered it to be "extreme"

 

you responded with:

 

 

 

 

Where did they say or imply "That ALL it takes is hard work"?

 

or "Work hard and no matter what soon enough you'll be rich -- and if you don't get rich it's because you didn't work hard enough."

 

I'll tell you where, no where.

 

You see, you just added that in there, it wasn't stated or even implied. It was mentioned as a component of what it takes to try to get there.

 

All Kool aid said was "Im trying to work my way there"

 

You're wrong on this one, and I'll argue that what was "extreme" was your perception of his statement.

 

 

 

On a sidenote, I love deconstructing arguments like this

 

I do too. Unless of course I'm the one that ends up with egg on my face.

 

Both.

 

Can't be both.

[CosmicBills]

Where did they say or imply "That ALL it takes is hard work"?

 

or "Work hard and no matter what soon enough you'll be rich -- and if you don't get rich it's because you didn't work hard enough."

 

I'll tell you where, no where.

 

You see, you just added that in there, it wasn't stated or even implied. It was mentioned as a component of what it takes to try to get there.

 

All Kool aid said was "Im trying to work my way there"

 

You're wrong on this one, and I'll argue that what was "extreme" was your perception of his statement.

 

On a sidenote, I love deconstructing arguments like this

Arguments like mine deserve to be deconstructed and ripped to shreds when wrong -- and I'm often wrong (especially about women)... so I'll play along

 

I didn't mean to imply Chef or Kool Aid were extremists merely that the core of their argument highlighted the fundamental difference between the two poles. Chef's original response was to Bills Fan 4ever who said "Keep supporting the wealthy who pay 14% in taxes while you pay 30%. and people wonder why equality is such an issue."

 

By pointing out what Chef and Kool Aid said I wasn't attempting to show them as extremists but rather show what Bills Fan 4ever and Chef/Kool Aid were really bumping up against. I just did so poorly by not including Bills Fan 4ever's quote. My point wasn't to call out Chef or Kool Aid for anything -- but rather to highlight what's really dividing the two sides in hopes of having a discussion about that (which we wound up with eventually).

 

Can't be both.

Sure it can. In this case, I made a vague point that you understandably missed.

 

But in the end, my point wasn't all that great to begin with.

[Juror#8]

Obviously you don't know what a "fact" is.

 

So allow me to educate you:

 

 

 

What you stated, was your opinion.

 

 

 

 

You believe they were obstructionist for purely political reasons and discount their motives.

 

I for one am glad that they in your words "obstructed" Obama's agenda of higher spending, with the intentions of temporarily stimulating the economy.

 

Fiscal conservatives vehemently disagree with the presidents policies because we believe that they don't solve the countries problems. Bush was a big spender, and as a result fiscal conservative minded voters didn't turn out for the 2006 mid term and 2008 presidential elections.

 

That is what we call "message received".

 

So you can pretend to know what you are talking about, which you don't, and spout your own OPINIONS and try to cast them off as facts, but we know better.

 

So please, spare us your bull ****

 

Loud and wrong.

 

Republicans set a record for filibustering in a session. They filibustered his legislative agenda and did so at record pace. That filibustering gridlocked the legislative process.

 

What, when, where, how are those "opinions"?

 

Is this what we can expect from you? You attacked a post both loudly and wrongly. You literally attacked the sky for being blue.

 

Do you want to backtrack even a little? Or is there something there for you to parse?

 

Maybe?

 

Something?

 

Edit: Reading your exchange with Tom from the District, it appears as if you're fixated on my use of "obstructioninst" vis-a-vis "fact" language.

 

Even though one could argue, very well, that it is a fact that the Rs actions were textbook "obstructionist":

 

"Definition of OBSTRUCTIONISM

 

 

 

: deliberate interference with the progress or business especially of a legislative body"

 

 

 

I was actually referring to their record filibustering.

 

Just some food for thought for ya.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Juror#8

[WorldTraveller]

 

 

No. So you just wasted my time with your filthy, grubby post. You fu(king fu(((kup.

 

Right now you sound like a B word on your period. Stop crying to me and go buy some feminine products.

 

Such vitriol

 

relax lil buddy, no need to get in a hissy fit

 

[Juror#8]

Such vitriol

 

relax lil buddy, no need to get in a hissy fit

 

 

You know what, language was a bit harsh.

 

Edited.

 

Happy Friday.

[WorldTraveller]

I think Juror just popped a blood vessel

 

You know what, language was a bit harsh.

 

Edited.

 

Happy Friday.

 

It's all good.....

[DC Tom]

You know what, language was a bit harsh.

 

Edited.

 

Happy Friday.

 

Harsh? I was thinking "Nice try, don't quit your day job, Mr. Milquetoast."

[Juror#8]

Harsh? I was thinking "Nice try, don't quit your day job, Mr. Milquetoast."

 

Yea, so, I have a tendency to be a little dogged in my responses. I type the **** stream of conscious when I'm annoyed and then post. Then I read it and I'm like "wow...ok, kind of classless Jason."

 

It may not be "harsh" for you. In fact, my unsophisitcated insults are probably a little "lightweight" insulting given your enjoyment for the discipline.

 

But I try to redeem the civility when possible.

[DC Tom]

It may not be "harsh" for you. In fact, my unsophisitcated insults are probably a little "lightweight" insulting given your enjoyment for the discipline.

 

But I try to redeem the civility when possible.

 

What can I say? I aspire to being an insult comic.

[Chef Jim]

Sure it can. In this case, I made a vague point that you understandably missed.

 

But in the end, my point wasn't all that great to begin with.

 

I'd reply to this but I'm too busy working hard trying to get rich.

[CosmicBills]

I'd reply to this but I'm too busy working hard trying to get rich.

And I'm too busy getting not-low and complaining the reason I'm not rich is because... well I forget. This is good ****.

[Rob's House]

The difference between successful liberals and conservatives is this; a conservative never admits weakness, and a liberal never admits they made it on their own. Conservatives tend to be narcists and Liberals tend to be humble. A conservative who doesn't make it "rich" will always blame government or a union, a liberal will blame himself.

You're an idiot. The listed traits don't necessarily fall along party lines. But I've dealt with a lot of both & while many rich liberals are "humble" and decent people that is by no means the rule, nor is it more common to them. In fact, the most entitled people I've ever dealt with are rich liberals. The most entitled, least virtuous, & most full of idealistic hot air are often rich liberal women who married for money.

[Rob's House]

I just dealt with another of Scooby's "humble" libs. This entitled kunt railed for 20 minutes over something any rational person would understand. Instead I got nonsensical gibberish that was intended to educate me on the flaws of my company's processes (not that I nor anyone I report to has dick **** to say about any of that, but morons take comfort in the belief that they're yelling at the corporation). Ultimately, all her rant illustrated was how ignorant she was of the issues and processes she was attempting to educate me on, and how unwilling she was to understand or apply any logic that may throw water on the fires of her retarded passions. It was just a reminder that liberals are inherently irrational, and according to their "thought" process (A)what you feel is all that matters and (B) any new info that would alter your feeling must be summarily dismissed without consideration.

[Doc]

It seems that Larry Flynt is offering $1M for Romney's tax records. I guess he's really worried that Romney will somehow manage to outlaw porn.