The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

That IS an hilarious graphic, considering they look so miserable despite the fact that they won't be as fucked as the lower classes, thank you Congress.

I wonder why people still trust the ATF, especially with all the crap that has happened in the past few decades. After these incidents, you'd think something could've been done about them, especially since it seems the FBI does a much better job than them.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']Yeah, they'll keep rehashing those same arguments. One of the articles that popped up in a Google Search said that Obama is a dirtbag for valuing children's safety over the right to own a gun. Remember that "responsible gun owner" crap. :lol: Responsible lawmakers would have had common sense laws put in place, but here are people saying they are anything but.[/QUOTE]

Considering Obama personally gives the A-OK on raining hellfire down on children on a near daily basis, that is hilarious.

Or it would be, if he weren't such a fucking scumbag for it.
 
The graphic is so hilariously wrong it's sad. How many single mothers out there do you think make 6 figures a year?
 
[quote name='Clak']http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040.html

BF-AE118B_05WIc_D_20130104192101.jpg


You've got to be fucking kidding me.[/QUOTE]

Leave it to a FOX NEWS runned company to put out ridiculous crap that is beyond the scope of anyone's imagination

Really a single mom and some single female making 250,000 a year? Who the fark is coming up with these nonsense.

Are these females HOOKERS?

How many average young folks here make 250K a year?
 
[quote name='Clak']The graphic is so hilariously wrong it's sad. How many single mothers out there do you think make 6 figures a year?[/QUOTE]

Do you realize that they are showing what people will be affected by the tax rates?

Most of the people making less than that are not going to be affected besides social security increase.

So no the chart isn't retarded, it is showing who is going to be affected under specific scenarios. It doesn't matter if there is just one single mother making that much, they were giving a variety of scenarios. It wouldn't make sense to have a graphic that says "single mom, making 30,000 a year, nothing changed." The article even says most people aren't affected by the increase

I know your flunkies are all backing you on this and the rest of the interwebz are giggling like little schoolgirls over it, but just think about it before you make an ass of yourself to the rest of us.
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']Leave it to a FOX NEWS runned company to put out ridiculous crap that is beyond the scope of anyone's imagination

Really a single mom and some single female making 250,000 a year? Who the fark is coming up with these nonsense.

Are these females HOOKERS?

How many average young folks here make 250K a year?[/QUOTE]

Same goes for you. Stop, read the article, and use your brain for a second.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Do you realize that they are showing what people will be affected by the tax rates?

Most of the people making less than that are not going to be affected besides social security increase.

So no the chart isn't retarded, it is showing who is going to be affected under specific scenarios. It doesn't matter if there is just one single mother making that much, they were giving a variety of scenarios. It wouldn't make sense to have a graphic that says "single mom, making 30,000 a year, nothing changed." The article even says most people aren't affected by the increase

I know your flunkies are all backing you on this and the rest of the interwebz are giggling like little schoolgirls over it, but just think about it before you make an ass of yourself to the rest of us.[/QUOTE]For anyone who reads this, keep in mind that "retarded" was his word, not mine.

And if by "specific scenarios" he means "scenarios that rarely happen", then yeah, I suppose so. Another scenario could be how taxes will be changed for one-legged pirates making over $500k a year. Of course that'd be ridiculous, where as this chart makes perfect fucking sense.:roll:
 
[quote name='Knoell']Do you realize that they are showing what people will be affected by the tax rates?

Most of the people making less than that are not going to be affected besides social security increase.

So no the chart isn't retarded, it is showing who is going to be affected under specific scenarios. It doesn't matter if there is just one single mother making that much, they were giving a variety of scenarios. It wouldn't make sense to have a graphic that says "single mom, making 30,000 a year, nothing changed." The article even says most people aren't affected by the increase

I know your flunkies are all backing you on this and the rest of the interwebz are giggling like little schoolgirls over it, but just think about it before you make an ass of yourself to the rest of us.[/QUOTE]

The problem is they're giving a variety of scenarios *within the 1%*. The single mother's $3,300 increase is almost all FICA increase - which is why her tax is going up and not, by comparison in the same graphic, the retired couple. That same 2% tax shift from last year to this year also effects a single mother making $30,000.

- The typical single mother is *FAR* more likely to be making $30,000 a year than $230,000. Or less.
- The burden of a 2% greater payment for someone making $30,000 is disproportionately more than for the single mother earning a nearly 800% greater salary. A difference of $3,300 for a mother earning $230,000 per year won't be the difference in, say, Christmas gifts, having the heat in your house set to a reasonable temperature, whether or not you can afford to take the family out to a "fine dinner" at Red Lobster once a month, etc. For the parent earning a quarter of a million dollars, it's a matter of "can we afford to take *as many vacations* this year as we normally do?", can we afford to keep our current nanny for as many hours, should we stop donating to charity, etc.

The WSJ's implication here is that there's a whole group of people - the bulk of Americans - who simply aren't affected by tax increases; moreover, those who are effected by the tax increases are deserving of some sympathy, and that this is a group whose lives are akin to those documented by Robert Frank in his photo project "The Americans."

I think it's this thread where Javery bemoans the looming tax increases and the impact on his family and his living standard. For him, the tax increase means he's going to rethink his charitable donations, yet he can still clearly afford a substantial addition to his house. For him, the tax increase doesn't pose any undue hardships on his existence, just a shift in inconvenience. Yet to listen to him talk of taxes and variation in the cost of living (a point I do agree with), he's facing the same stark conditions as the poor do if their taxes go up.

Which speaks to the ultimate point and criticism of this WSJ article and graphic - the wealthy have *NO fuckING CLUE* what it's like to be working class or poor, despite their appeals to think that they are.
 
I was just talking about this to my fiance yesterday, that the rich in this country have no idea what real worries even are. If you're bitching about having to cut back on "the help", then you've already shown yourself to have no clue about the worries of average Americans in regards to finances. It sickens me that some of you would defend that, but then I guess some people really do hope to achieve that some day, the ability to bitch about non-issues because you have no real worries.
 
You whine and cry about not raising taxes on the middle/lower class, and raising taxes on just "rich" people, and you win (besides social security). Then you complain when an article comes out describing what is going to change for these "rich" people, and you still complain that they left you out of the tax increase talk. Lol it is outstanding to read your posts.

You guys need to get a grip on reality here, and stop acting like noone cares about little old you and your 30k. The article clearly wasn't meant for you, so leaving you out makes sense.

Also, the problem with your post mykevermin is that noone was saying that we should raise taxes on the lower class. People kept pushing the same tired old line of "the rich should pay their fair share", and people got tired of it, and started saying "the poor don't pay anything". That was not meant to say the poor should pay more but to say "what do you mean we aren't paying our share? We are the only ones paying!"

Man the more I read your post the more I just have to laugh. The bitterness you have towards "rich" people is really telling. "they don't understand just how hard it is :cry:" lol.
 
2/3's of the world's billionaires made their money from scratch. You try and tell me they don't deserve it. We strive to become them, the ambition that drive's us and make's the world go round. Most can't understand that concept.
 
What's that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say I don't work hard? Unlike my peers I believe in something more than class warfare.
 
[quote name='cfootball1']What's that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say I don't work hard? Unlike my peers I believe in something more than class warfare.[/QUOTE]

Nah, I'm saying that you're young and naive. Next time you pay for a hoagie at a Wawa, tell yourself that the person working the cash register is motivated to be the next billionaire.

I skimmed a page this morning on Wampas on a Star Wars wiki website. I'd have to estimate that this page had around 5-7 drawings of Wampa (Wampas? What's the plural?), and several thousand words of text (about 8-10 pages if cut and paste into an office program) about a creature who shows up in Empire Strikes Back, captures Luke, and dies over the course of about 6 minutes.

Why do I bring that bit of Sunday morning silliness up? There's more to life than the profit motive, and there's evidence all around us of that very thing.

Also of note: all politics is class warfare, whether it's the plutocracy arguing the tired tautology that the outcomes of market economics are inherently fair, or whether it's a union fighting for a living wage. I'll repeat: all politics is class warfare. We all believe in it.
 
It's an ideology shared by the young and old I can assure you. Your mentality bred and perpetuated from the current administration will further lead to the deterioration of the American dream. You are where you are from your own volition. The owner of the Wawa is at where he's at from his own volition. Employing thousands of people as a result.


But as you state, it's a tired argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Do you actually believe this?[/QUOTE]

I know that I don't make enough to be affected, and I am still pretty damn tired of being taxed at the rate I am. I can only imagine to be making a decent amount of money, not qualify for most deductions, and have a greater chunk of my money taken away to support a bloated, ineffective, and inefficient government. Someone making a "large" amount of money, may have to pay a certain amount more, and you might deem that amount unsubstantial to them, and no it won't turn their heating off, but it is still THEIR money. The government does not get to determine that you are making too much money and therefore can afford to give more than everyone else. While increasing the debt consistently even after they raise these so desperately needed tax rates that "cause" the debt to go up.

I wonder what great idea Obama has cooking up now, Cash for Clunkers part ii? He's got the cash ;)
 
Damn do I wish we could maintain government services without paying for them. Then again, I'm a grown up who understands things have to be paid for, soooo....
 
[quote name='Clak']Damn do I wish we could maintain government services without paying for them. Then again, I'm a grown up who understands things have to be paid for, soooo....[/QUOTE]

man, I couldn't stop laughing. Weren't you or one of your toadies just saying how the debt was great for us, and is a normal aspect of a "thriving economy" lol.

Regardless though, the part where it is a bloated, inefficient, ineffective government should have tipped you off that I believe the government can be run much better if it didn't attempt to take everything on it's shoulders. Do you honestly feel good about the interest we are paying?
 
[quote name='Clak']Damn do I wish we could maintain government services without paying for them. Then again, I'm a grown up who understands things have to be paid for, soooo....[/QUOTE]

lolz $16 Trillion.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I know that I don't make enough to be affected, and I am still pretty damn tired of being taxed at the rate I am. I can only imagine to be making a decent amount of money, not qualify for most deductions, and have a greater chunk of my money taken away to support a bloated, ineffective, and inefficient government. Someone making a "large" amount of money, may have to pay a certain amount more, and you might deem that amount unsubstantial to them, and no it won't turn their heating off, but it is still THEIR money. The government does not get to determine that you are making too much money and therefore can afford to give more than everyone else. While increasing the debt consistently even after they raise these so desperately needed tax rates that "cause" the debt to go up.

I wonder what great idea Obama has cooking up now, Cash for Clunkers part ii? He's got the cash ;)[/QUOTE]

It's a simple question - do you believe that only a portion of the population actually pays taxes?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's a simple question - do you believe that only a portion of the population actually pays taxes?[/QUOTE]

83% pay federal taxes. 17% don't. So yes.

Regardless though, the argument is not that these people should pay more. Which is the direction you would love to take it, so that the mean old rich people look bad. It is that despite record breaking revenue, the government cannot handle the burden it has taken on, and needs to be slimmed down.

How can you argue increased revenue + decreased taxes + additional spending + record deficit = increase taxes and spend more to save the economy?
 
You do realize that there are plenty of things that even we think should see cuts in spending. The difference is what those things are in comparison to what you and the rest of the randians would like see cut. Hint: We aren't willing to leave people in the streets. I'd sooner raise taxes again on the wealthy if it meant keeping people from starving to death. Tax them until they start experiencing real world problems, maybe then they'll grow a conscience. Of course when the rich are no longer rich, Knoell won't have anyone left to shill for.
 
[quote name='Knoell']83% pay federal taxes. 17% don't. So yes.[/QUOTE]

Follow up question: are there taxes beyond "federal taxes" (since I'm not quite sure what specific taxes you mean by that)?
 
Additional follow up question for Knoell - do the rich and uber rich pay the taxes beyond "federal taxes" as well? Or do only the poor and middle class folks pay them?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Pretty sure he's talking about federal income tax, that's a pretty common republican talking point.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but let the grown up answer his own question. If we have to deal with so much semantic dodging by these dumbfucks, let me ask them to actually say what they mean - and if they show that they are incapable of making a refined, factual statement, I'll ask for further information.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I appreciate what you're trying to do, but let the grown up answer his own question. If we have to deal with so much semantic dodging by these dumbfucks, let me ask them to actually say what they mean - and if they show that they are incapable of making a refined, factual statement, I'll ask for further information.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure I stated federal taxes in my post. Would you like me to say it includes payroll taxes?

Regardless you are right taxes don't stop there for ANYONE. Everyone still pays the typically hefty property tax, capital gains tax, state tax, sales tax, gas tax, etc etc etc, it truely never ends. I understood this more than ever when I became a homeowner. The government hits you at every possible point that they can. Not only with taxes but fees as well. One of these years, I think I might calculate every penny the government confiscates and determine my true tax rate.

But anyways Clak, to say the government is stretched to its limit and can't make cuts that won't leave "people in the streets" is ridiculous. I know you weren't saying that, but you are heading towards the tired old area of "any domestic cuts = our people dying in the streets"
 
So i'm watching a re-run of Daily Show featuring Fox News clips about Current being sold to Al Jazeera, can someone tell me who this British douchebag on Fox is? I can't help but laugh about some of the things Alex Jones said about Pierce Morgan, with this windbag on Fox as well.
 
Can someone explain the Fox news vitriol? I don't even like O'reilly myself, I think he's obnoxious as hell. However ganging up on the lone conservative channel seems rather childish considering the entire MSM is firmly planted on Obama's dick. Once again confirming the left is only tolerant when you agree with them.
 
yes but at least MSM is somewhat factual

Fox News makes shit up and most of their news are based on lies and half-truths

Lets not forget when FOX put that (D) on a (R) who was caught up in some scandal
 
"Can someone explain to my why everyone hates some specific news channel? While I'm at it, let me repeat a sound bite from that news channel that's totally bullshit.

Yes, I DID just say those two sentences one after another."
 
[quote name='cfootball1']Can someone explain the Fox news vitriol? I don't even like O'reilly myself, I think he's obnoxious as hell. However ganging up on the lone conservative channel seems rather childish considering the entire MSM is firmly planted on Obama's dick. Once again confirming the left is only tolerant when you agree with them.[/QUOTE]
Despite what they think, fox is part of the mainstream media, and I can assure you they are not firmly placed on Obama's dick. As for why they're hated, well just watch it for a day or two, if you can't figure it out then I can't explain it.
 
Well Fox News is known to hire females that basically can be considered whores and the guys that are known as "that guy" the kind of guys that just makes people want to beat the crap out of them ( you know the type )
 
Yea it's just difficult to find any validity in these accusations of fabrications and half truths when the MSM is wiping Obama's cum off their faces. I watch it for Gutfeld and that's about it. If you hate something so passionately, especially something as inconsequential as a TV channel then you're doing it wrong.
 
[quote name='Strell']I thinking it's a joke account.[/QUOTE]
See, I thought so too at first, but not anymore. And that's kind of depressing.

[quote name='Strell']It's probably YOUR joke account, isn't it Mapleboy.[/quote]Woah, hey, don't go throwing around accusations like that.

I'm a birch syrup man, dammit.
 
Good. It's a weird restriction, and one I've expected to see removed for some time.[quote name='Clak']Along with his suspenders and bra. ;)[/QUOTE]
Hey, I put trees back in the ground, not take them out.
 
[quote name='Clak']Despite what they think, fox is part of the mainstream media, and I can assure you they are not firmly placed on Obama's dick. As for why they're hated, well just watch it for a day or two, if you can't figure it out then I can't explain it.[/QUOTE]

I've always loved how FOX News will complain about the "mainstream media" out one side of their mouth, but then talk about how they are the "most watched news network." I'm sorry, but if you're the most watched news network, that pretty much relegates you to being "mainstream" whether you like it or not.

As far as the media being "all over Obama's dick" goes, I found this data of the 2012 election coverage to be interesting.
 
Well I guess this was thinking out of the box? Too bad it is just another attempt to shame victims in the name of "protecting" women. What IS the issue with RAPE with Republicans?

"New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'"

"House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html
 
Well I guess this was thinking out of the box? Too bad it is just another attempt to shame victims in the name of "protecting" women. What IS the issue with RAPE with Republicans?
Click to expand...

Maybe cause a woman will never willfully/consentually sleep with a republican........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top