The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Im not talking about taxes, you moron. Im talking about your half-assed cassertion that the wealthy's spending habits have no effect on anybody. I was talking exclusively about a restraunt, you dunce, you twit, you jerk, you putz, you...oh why bother...
RkFast Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Just out of curiousity--what about Democracy Now makes you think it's far-left? How about their !@#$ing MISSION STATEMENT???!!!?? Democracy Now!’s War and Peace Report provides our audience with access to people and perspectives rarely heard in the U.S.corporate-sponsored media, including independent and international journalists, ordinary people from around the world who are directly affected by U.S. foreign policy, grassroots leaders and peace activists, artists, academics and independent analysts. Or are peace activists, scholars and artists RIGHT wing?
RkFast Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I was talking exclusively about a restraunt, you dunce, you twit, you jerk, you putz, you...oh why bother... FAIL Plus, the "restrunt" scenario was just used as an EXAMPLE of your idiotic assertions concerning the wealthy and what they do with their money.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 How about their !@#$ing MISSION STATEMENT???!!!?? Democracy Now!’s War and Peace Report provides our audience with access to people and perspectives rarely heard in the U.S.corporate-sponsored media, including independent and international journalists, ordinary people from around the world who are directly affected by U.S. foreign policy, grassroots leaders and peace activists, artists, academics and independent analysts. Or are peace activists, scholars and artists RIGHT wing? I had never read that before...yeah, I can see how that would be considered leftists. They certainly invite "lefties" to be on the show- but in defense of the show's hosts--as someone already pointed out--they rarely (f ever) support/back/advocate/editorialize with any kind of zeal. Also, I'm not at all ashamed of my inability to spell. I grew up using word processors that automatically fix your spelling for you. I"m not using a computer right now that doesn't have the checker available for this board. I'm over it.
Andrew in CA Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Just out of curiousity--what about Democracy Now makes you think it's far-left? DA consistently brings on guests that have views that are considered far-left, such as pro-Palestinian, environmental activists, protesters (that protest for left wing causes- see yesterday's show, for example), and ACLU human rights type activists. Specifically, I remember Goodman hosting a panel on DA during the Democratic convention. One of the women was a Clinton supporter who was so pissed she said she might not vote for Obama. Goodman asked her, "What exactly do you find appealing about McCain" or something of that sort, and also reminded her about the candidacies of Nader and McKinney. All that being said, I still think it's a worthwhile program. They report on international issues before they hit mainstream sources, for example they picked up on Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC long before I saw his name in print in the US. Also, they get good guests, and allow them to speak at length, without commentary. Finally, it rarely becomes an opinion show, so you don't get all hot and bothered because there are no diatribes from Goodman or Gonzalez. It's clear to me they are progressives, but that doesn't get in the way of their reporting most of the time.
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 DA consistently brings on guests that have views that are considered far-left, such as pro-Palestinian, environmental activists, protesters (that protest for left wing causes- see yesterday's show, for example), and ACLU human rights type activists. Specifically, I remember Goodman hosting a panel on DA during the Democratic convention. One of the women was a Clinton supporter who was so pissed she said she might not vote for Obama. Goodman asked her, "What exactly do you find appealing about McCain" or something of that sort, and also reminded her about the candidacies of Nader and McKinney. All that being said, I still think it's a worthwhile program. They report on international issues before they hit mainstream sources, for example they picked up on Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC long before I saw his name in print in the US. Also, they get good guests, and allow them to speak at length, without commentary. Finally, it rarely becomes an opinion show, so you don't get all hot and bothered because there are no diatribes from Goodman or Gonzalez. It's clear to me they are progressives, but that doesn't get in the way of their reporting most of the time. That's a pretty good summary! In fact, yesterday's guest was the first that annoyed me. Yesterday's guest--for all you non-listeners--was a soldier for climate change. But, even with that person, when it comes to ALL the guests, I never find fault with their causes.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 How about their !@#$ing MISSION STATEMENT???!!!?? Or are peace activists, scholars and artists RIGHT wing? Nope, you make a very good point, since you'd rarely find anyone on the right who wanted peace, was highly educated, or creative.
bills_fan Posted February 27, 2009 Author Posted February 27, 2009 No, I'm telling you that it's a good thing to help someone out if you can, because hoarding your money or spending it all on yourself isn't the only way to look at things or live your life. Kelly Noone is arguing about this point. I would venture to say that most folks on this board give to charity, both their time and money. I know I certainly do. The point is that it was your choice to give to your friend. The objection is where it is no longer your choice, but forced upon you by the government. And you have no choice but to give and they spend your money how they see fit.
erynthered Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Kelly Noone is arguing about this point. I would venture to say that most folks on this board give to charity, both their time and money. I know I certainly do. The point is that it was your choice to give to your friend. The objection is where it is no longer your choice, but forced upon you by the government. And you have no choice but to give and they spend your money how they see fit. I'm not giving him his $70 grand back.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Kelly Noone is arguing about this point. I would venture to say that most folks on this board give to charity, both their time and money. I know I certainly do. The point is that it was your choice to give to your friend. The objection is where it is no longer your choice, but forced upon you by the government. And you have no choice but to give and they spend your money how they see fit. As I said before, I was asked twice about how I felt about giving my money away, both voluntarily and involuntarily, and I responded twice. That's it. Of course I know the difference between being forced and donating yourself. You don't think I understand the difference? I also know a lot of rich people, both socially and professionally, and there are more democrats amongst them than republicans (because of who my friends are and where I work), and most but not all have no problem with paying a little more either. Would they prefer to pay less? Sure. But the trade off is okay with them. The rates don't start for awhile, they are not obscene, they are not unprecedented, they are the same as they were under a great economy, and they aren't going to kill small business or entrepreneurs, nor are they just going to pay lazy people to be lazier. That's a stupid argument. I understand why people want to pay less taxes. It's a legitimate argument. I also see where democratic economies often work better than republican economies. And if given a choice, whether I make in any given year above or below 250K, I am willing, myself, to pay the extra 3-4%. Others aren't. And that's fine.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I'm not giving him his $70 grand back. I wish someone would, I could use it. Interest free loan with no strings or guarantees, too.
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I wish someone would, I could use it. Interest free loan with no strings or guarantees, too. Kelly, if you're going to give $70k to an entity where you're not sure if you're ever going to get it back, good God man, do something more main stream, like invest in the stock market.
erynthered Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I wish someone would, I could use it. Interest free loan with no strings or guarantees, too. Did you at least get a reach around? In all seriousness, dog, that was pretty nice of you. Stupid? Yes. Nice? Yes.
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Did you at least get a reach around? In all seriousness, dog, that was pretty nice of you. Stupid? Yes. Nice? Yes. Well of course you know that's the lefty motto. We're stupid, but it's a nice stupid.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Kelly, if you're going to give $70k to an entity where you're not sure if you're ever going to get it back, good God man, do something more main stream, like invest in the stock market. So you can steal it rather than Obama who only wants it so he can redistribute it to communists? No way!
Kelly the Dog Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Did you at least get a reach around? In all seriousness, dog, that was pretty nice of you. Stupid? Yes. Nice? Yes. Stupid? Yes. Because to me, it was a no-brainer.
blzrul Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 The point is that it was your choice to give to your friend. The objection is where it is no longer your choice, but forced upon you by the government. And you have no choice but to give and they spend your money how they see fit. It is galling, that's true. No-one likes to be told what to do. What it boils down to though is at what point do things stop impacting just the people on the bottom - and there will ALWAYS be people on the bottom - and impact all of us? There are certain minimum things which have to be in place for a certain level of security (both economic and otherwise). Letting the banks all fail? I'd love it - but it would hurt many many people. In theory we should let it happen, but can we allow it as a practical matter? Same with the auto manufacturers. Maybe at another time, when the economy was not riddled with weakness as it is now, we could let this happen, but not today. I hate debt. I hate deficit. And I am really don't like the fact that I, a fiscally responsible person who takes nothing from anyone, is paying to prop up institutions and individuals who don't really deserve it. But I firmly believe that if we just "let it all go", we'll all go too.
Wacka Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 That guy who didn't tip could have been a Canadian.
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 So you can steal it rather than Obama who only wants it so he can redistribute it to communists? No way! Oh I won't steal it. I'll put it to good work for you. However what happens to it after that, damned if I know.
Adam Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 When the liberals get smart, they will rename their version redistribution of the wealth as trickle up. Then they can be smart like the conservatives. Until, then they can sit in the back and shut up. Oh wait, its their turn on the merry-go-round this time......every succeeding president just spends more and points the finger at the other party, while the sheeple play along
Recommended Posts